The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability or mental disability under the influence of alcohol.

On the other hand, the punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, and was hospitalized due to alcohol addiction and dependence.

However, in full view of the background and process of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant had a mental disorder to the extent that it was either mental disorder or mental disorder.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant, as to whether the instant crime is unreasonable or not, recognized both of the instant crime and reflects it, the Defendant was receiving treatment due to ordinary alcohol addiction and dependence, and expressed his intent to provide treatment, and that the Defendant was not guilty.

However, this case, without any reason, damages property without any reason, damages the elderly victim G head, etc., and damages the police officer's official duties, interfered with the police officer's performance of duties and injury. It is also recognized that the crime is very bad, the defendant requires strict punishment, the defendant has already been sentenced to a total of three times of suspended sentence due to the crime of causing property damage, including one time of suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the crime of causing property damage, and the defendant has been sentenced to a total of 11 times of suspended sentence of imprisonment, including two times of suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the crime of causing obstruction of performance of official duties, and in particular, the two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for the crime of interference with business on December 8, 2017 became final and conclusive for five years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for the crime of interference with business on December 8, 2017.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and result of the crime, etc., as well as the circumstances after the judgment of the court below.