A. The crime of this case committed by the defendant with mental and physical weakness is committed in a state of mental and physical weakness, such as stimulative disorder.

B. The punishment that the lower court sentenced to the criminal defendant [the crime described in paragraph (1) of the judgment (the crime committed on August 10, 2014 and the harm of property): Imprisonment with prison labor for one year of suspension of execution, two years of crime listed in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the judgment (the crime committed on February 10, 2017 and the harm of property on February 16, 2017): Imprisonment with prison labor for six months] is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness, it is not deemed that the Defendant did not change the object at the time of committing the instant crime or lack the ability to make a decision, and thus, the Defendant’s mental and physical weakness assertion is not acceptable, in light of the following: (a) the fact that the Defendant received medical treatment at the O hospital from April 14, 2016 to March 11, 2017 is recognized as having occurred; (b) the background and method leading up to the instant crime; (c) the process and method leading up to the instant crime; and (d) the circumstances at the time of committing the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant did not seem to have changed the object at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The following are the circumstances that the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime, agreed with the Plaintiff on the side of the hospital at the time of the appellate trial (the reference materials for the person on June 8, 2017), the Defendant suffers from mental illness, such as bipolartic disorder, etc., and the crime described in Article 1 of the judgment of the lower court should be considered at the same time as the crime of obstructing the execution of official duties for which the judgment became final and conclusive, and the equity with the case of the judgment should be considered.

However, the crime of this case is not only the fact that the defendant shows the medical records of his father, thereby obstructing the work of the head of the office and the employees, and destroying the property such as monitoring, but also the fact that there is not only the history of having been punished several times due to the same crime, but also two months after being sentenced to suspended execution due to interference with the performance of official duties and damage to the property, etc.