The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

2. It is advantageous to the fact that the judgment is against the defendant, that the defendant deposited for the damaged police officers in the trial, and that three of the damaged police officers want the defendant's wife.

However, the crime of this case was committed by four police officers dispatched after receiving a report while the defendant was under the influence of alcohol in a restaurant, and the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak, and the defendant has many records of punishment for the same crime.

In addition, the legal interest of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is the protection of legitimate state power and is not the protection of the public official's individual, so the defendant deposited for the damaged police officer.

The circumstance that the damaged police officer want to take the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant is limited to the determination of the sentence of this case.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and other circumstances, including the Defendant’s power, the motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.