The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. However, there are extenuating circumstances to consider the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided his mistake, and that the Defendant agreed with the victim of the crime of interference with business.

However, the crime of this case interferes with the defendant's business by avoiding disturbance at a entertainment station while under the influence of alcohol, and at the same time exercising violence against police officers by neglecting the discipline of police officers who tried to escort the defendant from the police box to the police station, and causing injury to police officers at the same time. The crime of this case is not easy, but it is highly likely that the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had already been punished six times due to obstruction of performance of official duties, violent crimes, and obstruction of duties.

Taking into account the circumstances above, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the "Article 316 (1) of the Criminal Act" is a clerical error in the "Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act", which is the legal provision applicable to the obstruction of the performance of official duties among the columns of the judgment of the court below.