A. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime of obstructing and refusing to leave.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the defendant was deemed to have a drinking at the time of committing the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties in this case and refusing to leave, but the defendant was found to have weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Although the fact that the victim of the instant crime refusing to comply with the order to leave of the court is not wanting to be punished by the Defendant, it is recognized that the Defendant had a history of crime on the other hand, that the Defendant again committed each of the instant crimes during the suspension of execution due to the same kind of traffic-related criminal records, in particular, repeated crimes within a short period, and that the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of the sentencing specified in the instant pleadings are considered, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.