All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The defendant asserts that the reason for appeal is too unreasonable because of the punishment sentenced by the court below (a punishment of 10 months, additional collection of 430,00 won). The prosecutor asserts that the prosecutor is too unfeasible and unfair.

2. A crime obstructing the performance of official duties is a threat to the legitimate exercise of governmental authority by the State and the safety of public officials, and the distribution and medication of narcotics, etc. is highly likely to cause serious social harm, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime.

The crime of interference with the execution of official duties among the crimes of this case committed violence, such as spit spit spit spit spit spit spit spit spit spit spit spit spit spit spit spit spit spit spit spit spit s

In addition, even if the defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving the drinking of this case had been significantly high 0.096%, the defendant's driving of drinking, three times (the fine of 700,000 won in 205, the fine of 1.5 million won in 2008, the fine of 2.5 million won in 201, and the fine of 2.5 million won in 201), and two times in crimes related to narcotics (the imprisonment of 1997, August, 200, the fine of 8 million won in 2005) were punished, it is recognized that the defendant again committed each of the crimes of this case.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant led to confession and reflects on the facts of crime, there is no record of punishment for interference with the performance of official duties in the past, and the police officer E, F and the original agreement, all of the records of punishment for narcotics-related crimes have been reached before 2005, and the fact that the defendant himself made clear about the source and distribution route of narcotics and cooperates with the investigation is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances and other circumstances as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime was committed, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable because it is too heavy, and thus, the argument that the sentencing of the Defendant and the Prosecutor is unfair.