A. At the time of each crime, the Defendant was unable or weak to discern things or make decisions by taking a large quantity of mental and physical drugs at the time of the damage of property and interference with the performance of official duties.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (an additional collection of 1 year and 100,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant was provided medical treatment as “the dependent upon other interest items, including carpets,” on August 23, 2016 and September 6, 2016, which was two months before the date of each crime that was the day of the destruction of property and interfere with the performance of official duties. However, in light of the background leading up to the crime, method and method of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant’s assertion is not deemed to have reached a state that there was no or weak ability to distinguish things or make decisions. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Examination of the judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, there are favorable sentencing factors such as the defendant's confession, the fact that the defendant is suffering from mental illness, the other party to the obstruction of the performance of official duties does not want the punishment of the defendant. However, there are three times the criminal records of narcotics (two times the actual punishment, one time the suspension of execution). Each of the crimes of this case is a repeated crime committed not less than three months, and particularly a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as "violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.") as a repeated crime, and the punishment of the court below is the lowest among the sentencing guidelines. In full view of all matters concerning the sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of this case, the punishment of the court below is judged to be appropriate, and there is no additional change of circumstances in the trial. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified.