The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not interfere with the performance of official duties by either taking a bath against police officers or by exercising violence.

Rather, police officers assault the defendant and illegally arrested him as a flagrant offender, and the victim police officers of the crime committed on August 20, 2018 were merely those who committed the same act as the police according to the direction of organized violence.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the overall process and process of occurrence of a case, which can be discovered by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior and overall circumstances at the time, etc., as stated in each facts charged, may recognize the fact that the Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, took a bath to police officers or obstructed the legitimate performance of official duties by exercising violence, and the police officers did not perform official duties unlawfully by assaulting the Defendant or by other unlawful means.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the principle of trial-oriented and directness of unreasonable sentencing, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the record of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too remote, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.

(b).