The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental disorder or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mental disorder, it is recognized that the defendant was under drinking condition at the time of the crime of this case, and that the defendant was ordered to attend the alcohol addiction treatment lecture on May 13, 2009 when he was sentenced to suspended sentence due to injury and obstruction of performance of official duties by the Suwon District Court.

However, in light of the background, means and method of the crime committed by the record, and the overall circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Until it seems that there was a state or weak, and even if the defendant was unable to control the impulse at that time, the defendant became unable to do so.

Even if the defendant predicted the risk of danger and self-determination, it can not be exempted or mitigated from punishment due to mental and physical disorder.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit (Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act).

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is against the defendant, and the slope I, who is the victim of the crime of injury in the trial, wanted the defendant's preference. However, there are 20 times violences against the defendant, and in order to establish the state's legal order and eradicate the light of the public authority, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties requires strict punishment. There are three times a fine for the crime of obstruction of official duties and one suspended sentence for the crime of obstruction of official duties, and there is a criminal record that the defendant has been sentenced one time a fine for the crime of obstruction of official duties, and in light of the past records, it shows