A. In the event that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, the lower court, which did not render a sentence mitigated or acquitted, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disorder, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant was in a drinking condition at the time of each of the instant crimes, but the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the fact, in light of the circumstances surrounding each of the instant crimes, the details, and the circumstances after the crime.

in such a manner as to be deemed to have been or weak.

The defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the mistake of the instant crime in depth and does not repeat the crime.

It is not good that the defendant's work as security guard after being released from the military.

However, the Defendant had been punished more than 20 times, including five times of punishment only after 2000 for the same case, and committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crime after the execution of punishment was completed on June 20, 2013.

The crime of this case is committed by the defendant entering the main office of the victim's real estate, causing an injury to the victim, and interfere with the performance of official duties by the police officer's fingers, etc., so the crime of this case is very heavy.

In addition, considering the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc. of the defendant and all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit.