A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, the fact that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes while drinking alcohol can be acknowledged.

However, in light of the background, means, and methods of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant had lost the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime in this case, or had weak ability to do so.

The defendant's argument about mental disorder shall not be accepted.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). New circumstances or special changes in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment do not appear.

The fact that the defendant reflects the defendant, and that there is an agreement with the victim of residential intrusion and building intrusion, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, the fact that the crime of "2018 Godan1177" in the judgment of the court below is the case that occurred during the period of repeated crime, and the fact that the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties in this case committed the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties (two times of punishment and fine two times) is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned various circumstances and other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, means and consequence, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit.