A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state with weak capacity to discern things or make decisions.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the claim of mental disability, the Defendant appears to have been in a state of drinking at the time of the instant crime, but considering the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, the Defendant’s statement details and attitude to the investigation agency, and the degree of memory of the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant did not have reached a state of low capacity to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

B. Although the police officer’s written application was submitted in the trial on the argument of unfair sentencing, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties of the State itself as the duty of the public official, not as an individual, cannot be viewed as an important sentencing factor. In light of the fact that there is no change in circumstances to change the sentence of the court below, and that there was no other warning that the police officer may be obstruction of performance of official duties over several times, the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit.