A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability.

B. The Defendant asserts that, with respect to the punishment of an unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand won) of the lower judgment, the Defendant is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor argues that it is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the judgment on the claim of mental retardation, even though the defendant was found to have been drinking at the time of the crime, the defendant did not have the ability or decision-making ability to discern things at the time of the crime in light of the circumstance of the crime in this case and the behavior of the defendant before and after the crime.

The defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted as it seems to be in a state or weak condition.

B. The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes without being aware of the fact that he/she committed a repeated offense even during the period of repeated offense; the Defendant can have the power to be punished for the same kind of crime; the State’s legal order and order are established to eradicate the light of public authority, and there is a need to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties; and the Defendant’s failure to receive a letter from the victimized police officer is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant reflects his mistake in depth, and that it seems that the degree of damage of the damaged police officer is not much serious even if he committed it, is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances and other circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, the background and motive leading to the instant crime, and all other matters regarding the sentencing as indicated in the instant records and pleadings, it is not deemed that the lower judgment’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is with merit.