The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who lost his mind and body or was physically and mentally weak, was drunk to the extent that he had no memory at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness.

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) that is unfair is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant appears to have been under the influence of drinking at the time of the instant crime. However, in light of the background, means and methods of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, and the details on which the Defendant stated in the investigative agency as to the instant crime, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things due to drinking.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical loss or mental weakness is without merit.

B. The crime of this case on the part of the illegal assertion of sentencing is very poor because the defendant spawns the police officers who told the defendant to see the case with other customers in the restaurant, and spawns the instant case into the instant case with the head.

In order to establish the law and order of the state and eradicate the reputation of the public authority, there is a great need to punish the crimes that interfere with the performance of official duties.

Defendant has been punished twice as a fine by a fine.

However, it appears that the defendant led to the confession and reflect of the crime of this case, the family members of the defendant want to take care of and guide to prevent recidivism against the defendant, and the defendant continued to receive medical treatment from around 2008 to around 2015. In particular, the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.