A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to mental illness.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Even if the Defendant had received a mental therapy prior to the instant crime, in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the specific method of the crime, the Defendant’s attitude before and after the instant crime, and the speech and behavior, it does not seem that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness at the time of the instant crime, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mental disorder is without merit.

B. The crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing is not deemed unfair because the defendant did not go against the prison life and obstructed the correctional officer's performance of official duties, and inflicted an injury on the correctional officer. The crime of this case which inflicted an injury on the correctional officer is deemed to require strict punishment compared to other obstruction of performance of official duties in light of the importance of duties performed by the correctional officer, and all the sentencing conditions of the defendant, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered to be too unreasonable.

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