The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Although the Defendant appealed on the ground that the Defendant was so unfair as to be sentenced to punishment (eight months of imprisonment) of the lower court, each of the instant crimes was committed by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant interfered with the main business by avoiding disturbance at the main place, and by using violence to the police officers dispatched thereto, and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the details and method of the relevant crime; the crime obstructing the performance of official duties is not punishable; the crime obstructing the exercise of legitimate public authority and impeding the function of the State’s legal order and order; the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victimized police officer; the Defendant committed a second offense, including the fact that there were multiple criminal records of the same kind of crime committed by the Defendant, and even if considering the agreement with the victim of the instant crime obstructing the performance of official duties, it is not recognized that the Defendant’s excessive punishment imposed by the Defendant on the grounds as stated in the reasoning of the lower judgment is unfair.

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.

However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the ex officio dismissal of "the choice of imprisonment" in Article 3 of the 3th sentence of the judgment of the court below as "the choice of imprisonment" shall be corrected as "the choice of imprisonment".