The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and unreasonable sentencing) (in fact-finding and the Defendant, by hand, has raised a name tag of the victim and saluted, but did not interfere with the victim’s face at one time. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim and interfered with emergency medical treatment.

Even if not, the sentence of the court below (2 years of suspended execution for eight months of imprisonment, 40 hours of probation, and violent therapy) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the victim’s legal statement in the lower court, the medical certificate of injury, the report of internal investigation (the confirmation of an emergency room for a patient with serious illnesses) and the I Emergency Center (Medical Map), it is recognized that the defendant, when considering the victim’s face at one time, has inflicted an injury by considering the victim’s face and at the same time interfered with the emergency medical treatment of the victim who is an emergency medical personnel.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of mistake that affected the judgment.

B. The fact that the victim did not suffer injury on the argument of unfair sentencing is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, interference with emergency medical treatment for emergency medical personnel is highly likely to interfere with proper medical services for emergency patients, and there is a need for severe punishment, the victim wants to punish the defendant, and there are several criminal records of violence against the defendant, and among them, there are criminal records of probation which are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, the lower court did not change the sentencing conditions that may be newly considered in this court compared to the lower court, comprehensively taking into account the above factors of sentencing.

The defendant's age, character and conduct, criminal records, and this case.