The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of each of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, who was physically and mentally weak, had the physical and mental disorder, such as a recompeting disorder, mixed uneasiness, and depression disorder, and had weak mental and physical weakness to distinguish drinking water from marina things or make decisions.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year of imprisonment, one year of confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, in light of various circumstances such as the background, means, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, it cannot be seen that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime of this case, and thus, the above assertion by the defendant cannot be accepted.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the fact relevance of each of the crimes of this case is recognized and reflected by the defendant, the defendant agreed with the victims of the assault and injury of this case, and the defendant has no other criminal records except for the violation of the Act on the Establishment of Local Reserve Forces.

However, the crime of this case is committed by possessing a knife, which is a dangerous thing of the defendant and demanding the government office to obtain monetary support, by taking the knife of the police officer called out upon receiving a report, or by using the knife and knife with carrying the knife and knife, and obstructing the police officer's performance of official duties in opposition against the police officer. In full view of the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, family relation, motive and circumstance of the crime, family relation, the motive and circumstance of the crime, and the result after the crime, the punishment imposed by the court below is appropriate, and the sentencing judgment by the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, it is true.