The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant by assaulting police officers who perform legitimate duties, thereby obstructing the performance of their duties, and causing bodily injury to police officers. The lower court determined a punishment by taking into account the following factors: although the Defendant was erroneous, the Defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of himself/herself even though he/she was currently under the period of suspension of execution, and the Defendant

In addition, considering the following factors, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, records of the crime, the method and circumstances of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

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

(However) However, the lower court appears to have omitted “the choice of punishment” in the “application of statutes,” and thus, ex officio, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, “1. Commercial concurrence” among “application of statutes” of the lower judgment pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure is corrected to add “1. The choice of each sentence