All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant with mental disorder was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental or physical weakness or loss.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (4 months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical disorder, even though the Defendant was aware of drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, in light of the background of the instant crime, the means and method of committing the instant crime, etc., it does not appear that the Defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things due to drinking at the time of committing the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. A favorable circumstance is that the Defendant confessions and reflects the determination of the unfair sentencing of the Defendant and the Prosecutor, and the degree of assault is relatively weak.

Meanwhile, as in the instant case, the crime of interference with the performance of official duties committed by police officers in front of the police station requires strict punishment in order to establish the state’s legal order and eradicate the light of public authority. The Defendant has been punished several times due to the same and similar crimes in the past, and the Defendant committed again the instant crime even during the suspension period of execution due to the same kind of crime.

Considering the above circumstances and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Commission (from January to August), and the fact that there is no special reason to change the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime was committed, etc., various sentencing conditions stated in the records and arguments in this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence, cannot be deemed unfair or unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument of sentencing is unfair.