The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unlawful in sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, observation of protection, 40 hours of an order to attend lectures for alcohol treatment, 40 hours of an order to attend violent treatment, 120 hours of an order to provide community service) is too unreasonable.

2. 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 does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the crime is recognized and closely reflects the fact that the crime is committed, that the form and degree of interference with the performance of official duties is not excessive, that the Defendant has a delay of class 3 due to high voltage electricity, and that only the Defendant’s income is the only veterinary hospital for the Defendant’s family members, and that the Defendant is responsible for the livelihood of two children.

However, in full view of all the circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is excessively excessive beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, even if considering the circumstances of the Defendant’s additional assertion in the trial, is considered to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, the lower court’s punishment is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It is difficult to see it.

The defendant's argument in sentencing is not accepted.

3. 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.