The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below did not recognize that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case. Thus, the court below erred by exceeding this point and affecting the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental disorder, even though the defendant was in a drunken state at the time of the crime of this case, in light of the following circumstances, such as the process and process of the crime, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, the defendant lacks the ability to distinguish things and make decisions at the time of the crime of this case.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not acceptable, since it is not recognized that the defendant had reached the above status of absence of such ability.

B. Although there are extenuating circumstances regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing, such as the Defendant’s absence of any history of criminal punishment except for the punishment imposed on the Defendant for a crime of double-class, and the fact that the Defendant’s mistake is against the police officer’s legitimate performance of official duties by using alcohol and violence, the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed in light of the nature of the crime. The lower court appears to have determined the punishment in consideration of all the favorable circumstances to the Defendant, and there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be considered newly after the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for the argument and the sentencing specified in the record of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are not recognized to be excessively unreasonable since the lower court’s sentencing should be reversed. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is also justified.