The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability with very weak flag due to flag, and breathing.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the claim of mental retardation, even though the defendant is deemed to have drunk prior to the crime of this case, in light of the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime of this case, it does not seem that the defendant had weak ability or decision-making ability to discern things due to drinking or chronic weakness at the time of the crime of this case.

The defendant's argument of mental disability is without merit.

B. It is reasonable to respect the allegation of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, under favorable circumstances, determined the punishment by taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant recognized the mistake of the Defendant; (b) the degree of assault and obstruction of official duties; and (c) the degree of assault and obstruction to official duties; and (d) the Defendant appears to have caused contingent crimes at the time; (b) the Defendant again committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crimes of the same obstruction of performance of official duties; and (c) the fact that the Defendant did not have been

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the court below, the place where the defendant was punished for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties was the C community service center, which is the place where the crime of this case was committed. The defendant visited the community service center from time to time in addition to the crime of this case, and seems to have caused danger to the public officials in charge of welfare, etc.