The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. The defendant's assertion of the grounds for appeal is submitted several times against his anti-discrimination, against his mistake in the crime of this case, and he is willing to continue his speech.

The mental problem of the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant's mental problem, such as alcohol addiction, seems to have affected the occurrence of the crime of this case, is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is not likely to be committed by a police officer or a fire-fighting officer who has been dispatched on three occasions for five days or more, with the desire to commit the crime of this case.

5. 23. Investigation of an offender who was arrested for committing an offense;

5. 27. Departments

5. It is highly probable that the Defendant committed the same crime on the one hand on November 28, 201. The Defendant has a lot of history of punishment against violence, as well as the crime of obstructing the performance of public duties of the same kind, and the record of punishing the crime of damaging public goods (three times of punishment, and one time of suspended execution of imprisonment). On November 18, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a crime of damaging public goods and committed the instant crime without being sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for the reason of the crime of damaging public goods, etc., and the Defendant committed the instant crime without being sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a period of the suspended sentence, taking into account the Defendant’s criminal history, the form of the offense, tendency, environment, etc., it cannot be readily concluded that

In addition, when comprehensively considering the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means, consequence, etc. of the crime in this case, all the sentencing conditions as shown in the present case's arguments and records, and the scope of the recommended punishment [No person who interferes with the performance of official duties and with the execution of official duties] in the basic area (no person in June to June, 1, 1, 2, 3: no person who is subject to special sentencing: the final sentence scope due to the increase of multiple offenses: June to February, 2:9], it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too excessive and unfair.

3. Conclusion of the defendant.