The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant committed a crime in a state of mental disability.

B. As to the 2019 Highest 6023 case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the spit of spits alone did not constitute the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment and two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record, the defendant is found to have been under the influence of alcohol, but there was no ability to discern things or make decisions due to that fact.

Since it seems that the defendant was in a state or weak condition, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is without merit.

B. In light of the legal principles, the court below rejected the above assertion by the defendant on the same argument as the grounds for appeal of this case. In light of the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the defendant's assertion, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

C. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions when compared to the first instance court’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The crime of embezzlement of stolen property by possession by a criminal defendant takes into account equity with the case of judgment at the same time as the crime of fraud, etc. for which judgment has become final and conclusive, but the criminal defendant has the record of having been punished several times as the same crime, committed again during the period of repeated crime, did not have any awareness of any special circumstances to change the sentencing after the judgment of the court below, and rather repeats the violation of the rules of prisoners.