A. Defendant 1) At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant had weak mental and physical weakness to distinguish things under the influence of alcohol or to make a decision on his own.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (six months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and methods of committing the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental and physical disorder at the time of committing the instant crime.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court ought to respect the determination of sentencing of the first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant is recognized and against the instant crime.

On the other hand, it is necessary to strictly punish a crime that interferes with the performance of official duties by obstructing the exercise of legitimate public authority.

Although the defendant had been punished for the same crime, he again committed the crime of this case.

They did not receive a letter from the injured party.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of various conditions of sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, health status, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and consequences, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be too heavy or unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

All the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor that the sentencing of the court below is unfair are rejected.

3. Conclusion.