The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state which lacks the ability to discern things and make decisions.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of judgment on the claim of mental disability, it is recognized that the defendant was in a drunken state at the time of the crime of this case, but it cannot be said that the defendant had a weak state of ability to discern things or make decisions in light of various circumstances, such as the background, means, and conduct before and after the crime. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing has been subject to punishment several times as crimes of the same kind, and the crime of this case is not less complicated than the nature of the crime by exercising violence against the police officers dispatched without obstructing the victim’s operation of taxi business, and does not reach an agreement or reimbursement of damage until the trial. The lower court’s punishment did not change any circumstances in the situation at the trial. In full view of all the favorable circumstances such as the confession and separation of the Defendant, there is no change in circumstances at the trial, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair on account of the following: (a) the background and means of the instant crime; (b) the circumstances after the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant’s career, environment, etc. and various sentencing conditions as shown in the oral proceedings.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.