A. The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant delayed the operation of trains on the tracks and obstructed the transportation of trains, and obstructed the performance of duties of railroad workers.

In addition, the defendant insultd the police officer who performed official duties more than five hours, and assaulted the head and vessel of the reduction of the crison, which was confined in the detention room.

If the safety of the means of transportation, such as a vehicle that transports many people or things temporarily, is violated, it may lead to a large brush and may cause a large inconvenience to many citizens who use the vehicle.

The Defendant was punished in 2014 for violating the Railroad Safety Act, and repeated the same crime during the period of repeated crime.

In addition, the insult of police officers is an act that seriously undermines the legitimate public authority that should be strictly enforced.

In light of this point, it is necessary to severely punish the defendant.

However, the defendant shows the attitude to recognize and reflect the crime of this case.

The Defendant committed the instant crime under the lack of capacity to discern things or make decisions.

In the case of the traffic of the train through the train, it is not long to the extent that the delayed time of the train is one minute.

In addition to such circumstances, the lower court cannot find any new circumstance that could change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance trial, including the Defendant’s age, sex, health status, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as all the sentencing conditions shown in the instant records and arguments, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance trial, and where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).