The judgment below

The part concerning the crime of interference with the execution of official duties and the crime of injury shall be reversed in the judgment of the court.

Defendant 2.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable that the sentence (4 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with the performance of official duties and injury in the judgment of the court below) pronounced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, including the following facts: (a) the Defendant reflects the Defendant’s mistake regarding the crime of interference with the performance of official duties and the crime of bodily injury; (b) the Defendant appears to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this part; and (c) the crime in this part appears to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this part; and (d) the crime in this part is in a concurrent relationship with the criminal record stated in the judgment of the lower court that became final and conclusive and the crime of bodily injury after Article 37 of the Criminal Act and need to be considered

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is justified.

B. As to the part of the crime of interference with the business affairs 1222 set forth in the judgment below, the Defendant recognized and reflected all the crimes in this part, and the lower court agreed to the only part with the victim.

This part of the crime also seems to have committed a contingent crime while under the influence of alcohol.

These circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant repeated a crime that interferes with similar business affairs since 2014, and committed a second offense only for two months even though he/she was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a crime of interference with business affairs on January 12, 2018.

It is not good that the crime of interference with business is transferred, such as gathering free residues.

There is no change in special circumstances that can be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the court below because new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the appellate court.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition to these circumstances, the contents and nature of the instant crime, the criminal history, age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances after the instant crime are revealed in the arguments.