A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. We examine the reasoning of the judgment and the prosecutor together.

It is recognized that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflects them, the fact that the defendant is a golding, and there is no criminal record exceeding the fine.

However, it is recognized that the blood alcohol concentration of the instant drinking driving is very high as 0.243%, the failure to agree with the victims of interference with duties and assault, the failure to obtain a letter from the police officers who suffered damage to the obstruction of performance of official duties, the following day after being arrested and investigated as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties again requires strict punishment, and the Defendant has already been punished two times of fines due to drinking driving, two times of fines due to obstruction of official duties, and one time of fines due to assault, and five times of fines due to other crimes.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.