The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment and a fine of 600,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the record of the determination on the assertion of mental disorder, even though the Defendant was in a state of drinking alcohol to a certain extent at the time of each of the instant crimes, in light of the motive and background of each of the instant crimes, the process of each of the instant crimes, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior immediately after each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes

No or weak state may have been found to have existed.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is not accepted.

3. It is reasonable that there are favorable circumstances in determining the Defendant’s punishment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, such as the Defendant’s wrongful representation against himself/herself, the Defendant’s taking of a single owner, and the Defendant’s taking of a single owner, and the attempted attempted fire-prevention.

However, even though the Defendant committed the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties, interference with duties, and injury in the past and committed the crimes of this case in the past 20 times, he again again committed the crimes of this case. The fire-prevention crime of this case is a serious crime detrimental to public safety and peace. When the fire-prevention crime of this case spreads, a large number of people may have been damaged, and social harm caused by the so-called “bomb” that drinks alcohol is serious, and other circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, character and character, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crimes, etc. are considered to be unfair since the sentencing of the lower court is too excessive.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

4. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.