The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disability.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant was under the influence of an unreasonable sentencing sentence and did not repeat the crime, the sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, even though the defendant was somewhat drunk at the time of the crime in this case, in light of the circumstance leading to the crime in this case, the detailed method of the crime, the defendant's attitude before and after the crime in this case, and the speech and behavior, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol, and therefore, the above assertion of mental and physical disability of the

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing (five times of imprisonment with prison labor, one time of suspension of the execution of imprisonment, and 16 times of fines) has been punished several times for the same kind of crime, such as violence, etc., and the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished for repeated crimes on October 19, 201 due to the obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. on August 30, 201. The Defendant committed the instant crime on August 30, 201, even though he/she had been punished for repeated crimes. The State’s legal order and order and the state’s need to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of official duties in order to eradicate the light of the public authority. However, the instant crime is deemed to have been committed by the Defendant under the influence of alcohol, but it is not deemed that the Defendant committed any injury to the victimized police officer due to the instant crime, and the Defendant’s reflects the background and result of the instant crime, and all the circumstances in the records and arguments, etc. after the instant crime, the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing is justified.