A. The Defendant with mental disorder was suffering from mental illness at the time of committing the instant crime.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the instant case’s assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the Defendant was registered as a disabled person of Grade III of mental disorder on April 28, 2015, and that he/she received medical treatment due to a disease such as bipolartic disorder, etc., but in light of all the circumstances such as the background, means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, etc., it is not deemed that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness, etc. at the time of the instant

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. Although there are favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime, and the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties requires strict punishment in order to establish the state’s legal order and eradicate the light of the public authority. The Defendant has the record of criminal punishment three times due to the same crime, and the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., are considered as inappropriate.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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