The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) acknowledges, replys to, and reflects against, the defendant's mistake, and accordingly, the punishment imposed by the court below (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the defendant lives with his mother and mother under ninety-two years of age.

2. The judgment of the Defendant sought that “limited to imprisonment with prison labor should have been avoided.” The Defendant recognized a criminal act in the course of investigation and trial, and there is concern for the Defendant to repent of the wrongness, and the Defendant appears to live together with his/her mother and appears to have been living together with his/her mother, etc. are considered in favor of the Defendant.

However, the defendant did a dangerous act while under the influence of alcohol and exercised violence against the police officer who prevented the defendant, at the end, and the nature of the crime is not good.

In addition, ① The Defendant committed the instant crime of obstruction of performance of official duties even after being placed on probation with special matters to be observed, which includes ① the criminal record of the Defendant, but more than 18 times prior to and two times prior to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and ② the Defendant received an order to attend a alcohol treatment lecture during the suspension of imprisonment for the crime of causing property damage, and again repeated the crime under the influence of alcohol despite being placed on probation with the special matters to be observed “not being under the influence of alcohol level of not less than 0.05%,” and ③ the victimized police officer sought a strong punishment against the police officer that “the Defendant did not seem to have any reflective nature, such as continuing the Defendant’s abusive in the course of taking custody in the earth and handing over the police station.” It appears that there was an unfavorable circumstance, such as the Defendant’s agreement with the victimized police officer or failure to recover from damage.

On the other hand, there is no new special circumstance or change of circumstances that can be reflected in the sentencing of the defendant in favor of the sentencing after the decision of the court below.

This is based on the sentencing cases of the same kind of case.