A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, even though the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of each of the crimes in this case, it is recognized that the defendant had no ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of each of the crimes in this case, in light of the defendant's average amount of drinking, the background leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances

Since it seems that the defendant's mental and physical disability cannot be seen as being or weak, the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. We examine the argument of unfair sentencing, and even though the defendant is found to have been led to the confession of each of the crimes of this case, the defendant has been punished several times for the same kind of crimes, and the defendant has been sentenced on September 19, 201 and completed the execution of the sentence on March 11, 2012 due to the injury and obstruction of performance of official duties on September 19, 201, and again committed the same kind of crimes during the repeated crime period. The victim of the injury and obstruction of official duties in this case had four victims, and the victims have not agreed at all. The crime of obstruction of official duties is a crime detrimental to the state's function by nullifying a legitimate exercise of public authority, and other various circumstances, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, character, environment, motive and environment, motive, means, method and consequence of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, and criminal records, etc., the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not justified, and thus, is not justified.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.