The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant of mental and physical disorder (mental disorder and sentencing disorder) was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to inhalement of hallucinogenic substances, at the time of each crime as provided in Section 2 (Special Intimidation) and Section 3 (Obstruction of Performance of Special Official Duties) of the judgment of the court below.

The punishment of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court as to the assertion of mental or physical disorder, namely, the Defendant committed each of the crimes described in paragraphs (2) and (3) as stated in the lower judgment’s judgment around October 31, 2017, which last 3 days from October 27, 2017, and the Defendant is likely to inhale hallucinogenic substances contained in the mainboard used thereof, by newly adopting a saf and a board on October 31, 2017:

However, in full view of the fact that there is no evidence to support one’s assertion, the Defendant committed several violent crimes under the influence of inhaleing the main body in the past, and other means and methods of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the Defendant was in a state that, at the time of each crime described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the lower judgment, the Defendant was in the state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the inhalement of

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the sentencing is decided within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors that are conditions for the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance is at the discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the first instance sentencing trial process.