A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions because he was suffering from alcohol and sulves, even though he had been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

B. In light of the fact that the illegal defendant is against the sentencing, the fact that the defendant was not found in the police station for the purpose of retaliation in relation to the obstruction of the performance of official duties in Paragraph 4 of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, and that the health is not good, the sentence (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, and received the evidence of alcohol alcohol and the treatment of sulves before committing the instant crime.

Even in light of the background and method of the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had weak ability to identify things or make decisions.

Therefore, it is difficult to see the above argument of the defendant.

B. Considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant regarding the determination of the illegality of sentencing and the fact that the goods damaged in relation to the damage of the goods for public use were repaired, the crime of this case is deemed to have continuously interfered with the performance of official duties and damaged the goods for public use on several occasions, and is very poor in terms of the method, background, and nature of the crime, the Defendant has been sentenced once to imprisonment with prison labor due to the same crime, the Defendant has been sentenced to three times a fine, the obstruction of the performance of official duties requires strict punishment to establish public authority and legal order, and other various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, and sexual behavior, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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