A. At the time of committing a crime interfering with the performance of official duties of this case, the Defendant was physically and mentally under the influence of alcohol.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of various circumstances, such as the details of a crime obstructing the performance of official duties committed by the Defendant at the time when the lower court duly admitted and examined evidence, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the crime, even though the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime, it did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.

Since it is not recognized, the defendant's mental and physical weak argument is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant made a confession of all of the instant crimes and reflects his mistake, and that both the lower court and the first instance court have agreed with police officers.

However, even though the Defendant had already been punished four times or more due to drinking driving, driving under drinking again, and exercising direct violence against enforcement officers, etc., the nature of the crime is not good. In full view of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, criminal records, the circumstances and result of the instant crime, and other various sentencing factors indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s improper assertion of sentencing is not justified.

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