A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and committed the instant crime in a state of mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two million won by fine) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the judgment on the claim of mental disability, even though the defendant was found to have drank alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the defendant's usual drinking amount, the background and process of the crime, the means and method, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, etc., it does not seem that the defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime, but even if so, Article 10 (2) of the Criminal Act is not applicable to the defendant's act because the defendant's act constitutes a person who predicted danger and caused a mental disorder by drinking alcohol. Thus, the above argument by

B. It is recognized that the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is against the defendant's confession of crime.

However, it is difficult to view that the Defendant made efforts to recover from damage to the Defendant’s trial by taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and method of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable, by taking into account the following factors: (a) it is not good that the Defendant’s criminal act was committed against the police officer in the course of performing official duties for a considerable period of time; and (b) it is difficult to deem the Defendant to have made efforts to recover from damage by committing six criminal offenses.

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.