All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The Defendant, the gist of the grounds for appeal, and the Defendant, the mentally and physically weak, was in a state of mental and physical weakness by taking the drinking and phiphones at the time of committing the instant crime.

The punishment (one year and two months of imprisonment, additional collection) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

In light of the background leading up to the Defendant, the means and method of committing a crime, the attitude and behavior of the Defendant before and after the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking or phiphone medication at the time of the instant crime, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

The defendant and the prosecutor's argument about the unfair sentencing are also examined.

There are extenuating circumstances such as the Defendant’s confession of each of the crimes in this case, and the Defendant’s cooperation in the investigation related to narcotics.

However, the Defendant, after being sentenced to suspension of indictment for a crime related to narcotics, has been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and a suspended sentence one time each, and the obstruction of the performance of official duties requires strict punishment in order to resolve the fluence of legitimate public authority and establish legal order. The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes without being aware of even though it is a repeated crime period, and the police officer of the obstruction of the performance of official duties committed again without being aware of the fact that the Defendant was punished by the Defendant, and other various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, family relationship, means and consequence of the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and theories of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, do not seem to be unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or uneasible.