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 diagnosed as having alcohol dementia, personality disorder, depression, etc., and was hospitalized in a mental hospital. It was a situation where the Defendant was unable to completely memory the day at the time of the instant crime, and there was no ability to discern things due to mental disorder.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the determination on the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant was diagnosed as requiring hospitalized treatment on January 201, 201, which is the transfer of the obstruction of performance of official duties and the crime of drinking driving, under the name of sick person, such as Maul-gun of alcohol dependence on alcohol use, Mali-do Epid, anti-social personality disorder, etc., which had been first promoted from the mental health department, and the Defendant was found to have been diagnosed as requiring hospitalized treatment around January 2015, which is before the instant obstruction of performance of official duties and the crime of drinking driving.

However, in light of the circumstances surrounding each of the instant crimes and the control, the circumstances before and after the enforcement, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Defendant did not have or lacks the intent or ability to discern things at the time of the instant crimes.

Furthermore, Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act provides that "the preceding two paragraphs shall not apply to any act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a person's mental disorder as a person." This provision includes not only a free act in a cause caused by intention but also a free act in a cause caused by negligence. Thus, even though it was possible to anticipate the occurrence of danger, it shall also be applicable in a case where the occurrence of danger was caused by a person's mental disorder. In a case where the defendant was under the influence of alcohol with the intention of driving under influence of alcohol and carried out the operation after driving under the influence of alcohol, the defendant constitutes a case where the risk of driving under the influence of alcohol was predicted, and thus,