A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 suffered from stimulative disorder, but was physically and mentally weak due to the fact that the Defendant was suffering from stimulative disorder at the time of the instant crime.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the Defendant’s assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant was found to have received mental and hospitalized treatment due to stimulative disorder before and after each of the instant crimes, but on the other hand, in light of various circumstances, such as the background of the instant crime, means of the crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the crime, and the Defendant’s motive or process of the crime, which are recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the disease at the time of the crime.

does not appear.

B. We also examine the determination of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor.

The defendant has had a history of being subject to criminal punishment several times, including a variety of crimes committed and sentenced four times, and finally, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime in violation of the Automobile Management Act.

The degree of the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, interference with duties, and interference with the performance of duties by railroad workers is not easy, and the damage caused by each crime has not been recovered.

However, it is clear that the Defendant suffers from stimulative disorder, and even if it does not reach the level of mental and physical weakness at the time of each crime, it is necessary to provide medical treatment. Therefore, in full view of these circumstances, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is appropriate, taking into account all the circumstances indicated in the records and arguments in this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, and environment.