The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected against the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

However, although the defendant had already been subject to criminal punishment for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, he/she again committed an act of obstructing the performance of official duties, causing interference with the establishment of legal order, impairing the authority of the public authority, and thus, is highly likely to be criticized, and the degree of the type of force exercised by the defendant is not weak, and the fact that the crime of this case was committed during the period of suspension of execution is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above normal relationship and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

In addition, if 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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant deposited KRW 1 million for the victimized police officer in the trial. However, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is a crime that infringes on national legal interests, and it is difficult to view that the deposit of part of the amount to the public official’s individual with the victimized police officer is an important element in sentencing, and it is difficult to view that there is a significant change of circumstance to deem that maintaining the sentencing of the lower court is unreasonable in the trial.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. 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 ordered as per Disposition.