The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had a mental and physical loss or mental weak condition under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances leading up to each of the instant crimes, the following circumstances, means and methods, the Defendant’s speech and behavior, etc. at the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, etc.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Even if the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, he was physically and mentally weak at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

Even if the defendant, in light of the fact that he drinks more than three times the amount of his ordinary liquor, etc., the defendant predicted the risk that may occur after drinking, and even if he predicted it in advance, the defendant was placed in a state of mental and physical weakness.

Therefore, the above act by the defendant as above constitutes a so-called "free act in the cause" under Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the mental and physical weakness cannot be mitigated.

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

B. The fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes, and agreed to pay a total of KRW 450,00 to the victims of injury and damage to property, even though it is recognized that there was a total of four criminal punishment, and that the period of suspension of execution expires, and again commits each of the instant crimes, the crime of this case is not good, the crime of each of the instant crimes requires strict punishment in order to establish public authority and legal order, the crime of interference with the execution of official duties requires strict punishment, the lower court’s sentencing conditions do not differ from the sentencing conditions of the lower court, and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case are considered to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.