The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (3 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, it is reasonable to 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 Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant appears to have an attitude against the recognition of the instant criminal act, and the Defendant has no record of being subject to the same criminal punishment prior to the instant criminal act, etc., favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is a crime that has undermined the legitimate exercise of public authority and thus has a need to be punished strictly, and is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and all the sentencing factors expressed in the instant records and trial process, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not deemed to have exceeded the scope of reasonable discretion or to be unfair because it was too excessive.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition, since the defendant's appeal is without merit.