The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, damage to property, and assault in the case of 2013 high-risk 469, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability so as to avoid memory under the influence of alcohol.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (the provisional punishment of the first and second crimes as indicated in the original judgment: the suspended sentence of the imprisonment of six months; the suspended sentence of the imprisonment of two years; the first-B and the third crimes: the imprisonment of one year and two months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the record as to the claim of mental disability, even though the defendant was found to have drankly drinking at the time of each of the above crimes, in light of various circumstances, such as the background, method, content, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, it does not seem that the defendant at the time of the crime did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions, and therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the following should be taken into account: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is in profoundly against the Defendant; (b) the first and second crimes in the decision of the lower court should take into account the equity with the case where the judgment was rendered concurrently with the crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive; and (c) the Defendant suffers from friendly disability and requires medical treatment.

However, on August 8, 2012, the defendant administered philophones on the same day, even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and a probation order for one-year imprisonment due to philophone medication, etc., and continues to commit the same crime even after the suspension of execution and probation period, the defendant committed the same crime again while he was punished as obstruction of performance of official duties, crime of damaging property, and crime of inflicting bodily injury, and did not agree with the victims. The court below determined the punishment in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and can be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the court below.