The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant merely confirmed that he was a kicker due to a disturbance that occurred in the instant letter or the water surface room, and did not interfere with his business operation by throwing a knick or sound, and there is no fact that the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by assaulting a police officer.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant interfered with the business or operation of the plaintiff by avoiding disturbance, such as taking noise from the letter of the instant case as shown in Paragraph 1 of the court below's decision, and the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he was sent to the police officer after receiving 112 report as described in Paragraph 2 of the court below's decision and interfered with the performance of official duties by leading the right hand hand hand hand hand to the right hand hand hand hand. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The degree of interference with the instant business and interference with the performance of official duties is not somewhat weak in determining the unfair argument of sentencing.

The defendant has been punished for three times due to violence-related crimes.

It does not seem to be against the denial of the crime from the investigation agency to the trial of the party.

However, on February 2006, the Defendant is not in a good condition, such as having to undergo a surgery with the upper-line cancer and to undergo a lifelong Homon assistant therapy.

The Defendant was punished beyond a fine prior to the crime of this case, and there was no record of the crime.

In this case, five months of detention had an opportunity to reflect.

In addition, in full view of the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is unlimited and deemed unfair. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

4. Conclusion.