Examining the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the background leading up to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, method of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the crime of obstruction of official duties. Therefore, the judgment below did not recognize the mental disorder of the defendant.

On the other hand, the argument that the court below erred in infringing on the basic contents of the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of responsibility due to erroneous determination of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the sentencing conditions constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.