The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination is recognized: (a) the fact that the Defendant is recognized as having committed a crime; and (b) the fact that the Defendant did not have serious damage due to the Defendant’s crime.

However, since the crime of this case was committed by assaulting a police officer dispatched by receiving a report and obstructing the legitimate performance of official duties, the nature of the crime is not good, and as mentioned by the court below, the crime of violence tendency (including the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties once) was committed, as mentioned by the court below, and the crime of the same tendency was committed without being sentenced to a fine during the period of repeated crime, and it was committed again without being sentenced to a criminal act during the period of repeated crime, so it is inevitable to declare that the risk of recidivism is high, and the defendant expressed his intention to deposit with the damaged police officer. However, the crime of obstruction of official duties cannot be deemed as an important factor in sentencing because the crime of obstruction of official duties was committed by a public official who is not an agreement with the damaged police officer, and considering all the sentencing conditions in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, and circumstances before and after the crime, even if considering the circumstances cited by the defendant in the grounds for appeal, the defendant's allegation is not acceptable.

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.