The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Although the Defendant appealed on the ground that the Defendant’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) was too unreasonable, in light of the course and method of each of the instant crimes, the nature of the crime is not good, and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties in this case requires strict punishment as an act impeding the legitimate exercise of public authority and the function of the State’s legal order, and there are a large number of criminal records against the Defendant, especially the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes without being aware of even during the period of repeated crime, in light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, including the fact that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes, the Defendant does not seem to have committed each of the instant crimes; the Defendant agreed with each of the instant crimes of obstruction of business and injury; the Defendant agreed with each of the victims of the instant crimes of obstruction of business operations and injury; and the Defendant agreed with the victim of the instant crimes of obstruction of business operations at the time of the trial; and even considering the fact that the Defendant and the family members of the Defendant wanted the Defendant to take the Defendant against the Defendant, it cannot be deemed unfair on the grounds indicated

Since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.