The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court of first instance, among the facts charged, dismissed the prosecution on the violation of violence, and found the defendant guilty only with respect to the obstruction of performance of official duties.

Therefore, since only the defendant appealed against the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the dismissal of prosecution in the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the first instance court.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

(a) The sentence of the first instance judgment (five months of imprisonment) against the accused in the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties as indicated in the judgment and expressed his/her intent to reflect.

However, as the court of first instance decided, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is basically a need for strict punishment, and the defendant committed the above crime during the period of repeated crime.

In addition to the major circumstances against the defendant, it is difficult to view that there is a need for mitigation in the sentence of the court of first instance.

Furthermore, even if there is no change in the sentencing conditions in comparison with the first instance court because a new sentencing data has not been submitted in the trial, and other circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, are considered, it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the first instance court is too excessive and excess to the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit.