The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (five months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Although there are no circumstances to consider the Defendant’s confession and reply to the instant crime under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a contingent manner, and the Defendant has no criminal record of the same kind. However, the instant crime was committed in the daytime by having reported 112 by the Defendant and the taxi engineer who was sent to the police station on his hand after having reported 112 as a matter of the charge, and assaulting the police officer’s breath in his hand. The nature of the instant crime is significant; the method and attitude of the instant crime was defective; the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he was under the suspension of execution due to the violation of the former Road Traffic Act at the time, even though he was under the suspension of execution due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act at the time, it was recognized that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the age, character, environment, family relationship, the circumstances and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

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