The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges that interfere with the performance of special duties, on the grounds that the Defendant did not excessively display the police officers, but rather put the police officers with the words of the paper. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's excessive amount of money that the defendant concealed from the junkro in Busan as stated in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, it can be recognized that police officers C are exposed to police officers.

B. The crime of interference with the execution of special official duties of this case, which affected the determination of the illegality of sentencing, is deemed to have been committed by the Defendant entering the Busan Viewing Office with excessive concealment, and the police officer faced with direct threat to the body of the police officer, and thus, despite the poor nature of the crime, the Defendant does not seem to be consistent with the unperficiencies defense, even though the crime was not committed.

The defendant shall be punished for violent crimes, including interference with the execution of public duties, at least six times in total, and in particular, on April 29, 2016, he/she was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for one year for a crime of interference with the performance of public duties, interference with duties, or insult.

9. 22. The act of committing each of the crimes of this case similar to those of this case is committed at the time when approximately one month has not elapsed since the release on 22.

In full view of the fact that the victims of the crime interfering with business have not recovered from the damage, the sentence imposed by the court below is not heavy, in light of the records of this case, including the defendant's age, sex, and environment, and the various sentencing conditions shown in the change theory.

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