The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of the fact, only had talked with the police who had been in the process of the past police investigation, and did not interfere with the performance of official duties by causing the police officers to have been in the process of the past police investigation.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness due to drinking at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (eight months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion by the Defendant is sufficiently recognized as follows: (a) the instant facts charged that the Defendant interfered with the police officer’s performance of duties by assaulting the police officer by assaulting the police officer on one occasion while taking a bath and taking a part of the police officer’s breath while drinking in the street of the Seoul Gangseo Police Station G police box on September 26, 2017; and (b) assaulting the police officer at one time while taking the bath and taking the part of the police officer’s breath while drinking;

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each crime as stated in the judgment below, but in full view of the circumstances leading up to each crime as indicated in the evidence above, the contents, means and methods of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the reputation of the defendant, and the records of the defendant, etc., the defendant was in the state of loss or lack of ability to discern things or make decisions.

As such, the defendant's above assertion is not reasonable.

(c)

It seems that the health of the defendant and his spouse is not good as to the unfair argument of sentencing, and that the defendant has made efforts to improve the recidivism by taking a medical treatment for alcohol addiction in the past for several months, but it is recognized that the defendant is still under the probation period for the same crime, but it is after the decision to suspend the execution becomes final and conclusive.