A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical disorder having no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case under the influence of alcohol, and the defendant was treated ex officio due to the diagnosis of the first-class polarization disorder, the lack of caution disorder, etc., and the defendant requires continuous mental and physical therapy. However, in light of the circumstance of each of the crimes in this case, which can be known by evidence duly adopted and investigated at the court below, the circumstance before and after each of the crimes in this case, and the defendant's behavior at the time, etc., it cannot be seen that the defendant did not have or lacks the ability to distinguish things or make decisions at the time of each of the crimes in this case. Thus, the defendant's mental and physical disorder argument is without merit.

B. Each of the instant crimes committed on the assertion of unfair sentencing is very poor because they interfere with the victim D’s restaurant business and the operation of the victim L text stores by avoiding disturbance, such as taking a bath or gathering of things without any particular reason, interfered with the victim’s business affairs, obtain pecuniary benefits equivalent to the taxi fare by participating in the victim P. The police officers who intend to investigate the said public conflict, or interfered with the legitimate exercise of public authority by blocking and obstructing the exercise of legitimate public authority by forcing the police officers who want to investigate the said public conflict at the police station. The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes even though he had been punished three times by a fine due to the crime of interference with business in 2012. Each of the instant crimes committed again, each of the instant crimes interfered with the neighboring people’s duties or interfered with the legitimate performance of public duties by the police officers.