The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the lower court dismissed the prosecution as to each of the assaults against the Defendant, and convicted the Defendant of interference with duties, interference with the performance of official duties, and damage to public goods. The only Defendant appealed as to the guilty portion of the lower judgment.

Therefore, since the judgment of the court below to dismiss the public prosecution against the defendant is separated from the original judgment, the part to dismiss the public prosecution is excluded from the scope of this court.

Ultimately, among the judgment of the court below, only the guilty portion of the defendant belongs to the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Under our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination, where there exists a unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance 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 Defendant is contrary to the recognition of all of the instant crimes, and the victim of the crime of interference with business did not want to be punished against the Defendant, and the extent of the assault inflicted by the Defendant is relatively heavy is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the obstruction of the performance of official duties is an offense against the public authority that duly executes the law, and requires strict punishment for the restoration of public confidence in the public authority.

The defendant interfered with the main place's business, and caused violence to police officers dispatched for this reason without any particular reason.

Prior to each of the crimes in this case, the Defendant has a record of criminal punishment several times for violent crimes, and in particular, there is a record of criminal punishment for a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties and obstructing duties, which are identical crimes, on several occasions.

In addition, the defendant.