A. The Defendant had a mental and physical weak condition under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime of obstructing the performance of official duties and damaging public goods.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below on the argument of mental and physical weakness, it is recognized that the defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of committing the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties in the instant case and damaging public goods.

However, in full view of the circumstances such as the obstruction of the Defendant’s performance of official duties, the background leading up to the Defendant’s commission of the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had weak ability to discern things or make decisions

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. The lower court’s sentencing determination on the unfair argument of sentencing seems to have been determined by fully taking into account the various favorable circumstances against the Defendant, and there is no special change in circumstances that could change the sentencing after the lower judgment.

In addition, taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

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