A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder by drinking alcohol.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two months of imprisonment and a fine of six hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of various circumstances, such as the background of the instant crime, Defendant’s behavior or attitude before and after the instant crime, which is acknowledged by the evidence duly examined in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant was the principal offender at the time of the instant crime, but did not have the ability to discern things or make a decision by drinking.

Since it seems that the defendant was in a state or weak condition, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. In full view of all the circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing of the instant case as indicated in the records and pleadings, such as there is no change of circumstances to consider the sentencing following the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the degree of assault in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, the Defendant has been punished several times as violent crimes in the state of his taking advantage of the records and arguments, etc., even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, the sentence of the court below is too

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, according to Article 25 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the third-party 11 to 12 of the decision of the court below shall be corrected as follows: 1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Code (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties) of the corresponding law on criminal facts; Article 3 (3) 1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (the point of the place of revocation at the government office)

1. The court below committed obstruction of the performance of official duties against the Defendant F and G under Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act, despite the relationship between the Defendant F and G with the ordinary concurrent crimes.