A. The Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case in a state of weak mental and physical disorder due to depression, anti-competitive disorder, decentralization disorder, and obstination.

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

2. According to the record of the determination on the claim of mental and physical disability, the Defendant received ex post facto medical treatment from around July 2018 due to alcohol dependence, depression, etc., and the fact that the Defendant had dice at the time of each of the instant crimes is recognized.

However, according to the mental appraisal conducted at the trial, although the defendant was unable to use alcohol, it is presumed that the defendant committed a crime because he voluntarily taken alcohol at the time of each of the crimes of this case and temporarily lowered his ability to control impulse, and that the defendant's ability to discern things and make decisions was sound at the time of the crime. In light of various circumstances, such as the background, means and methods of each of the crimes, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, it does not seem that the defendant did not have reached a state where the defendant's ability to distinguish things or make decisions was weak at the time of each of the crimes of this case, so the defendant's argument of mental disability

3. The circumstances favorable to the defendant are that the defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case, recognized and reflected each of the crimes of this case, the victims wished to take the post by mutual consent with the victim B and C, his family members wanting to take the post, and that there was a 3rd disability in delay.

However, the act of obstructing the performance of official duties causes an obstacle to the establishment of legal order, and it is highly likely to cause criticism in that it harms the authority of the public authority, and the degree of assault and the injury caused by the assault exercised against the victim B and C is not less narrowly, and the defendant has committed again the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties even though he was convicted of the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties and was under probation.