All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant with mental disorder was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness at the time of each of the instant crimes.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of various circumstances, such as the background of each of the instant crimes, conduct before and after the commission of the crime, and the means and method of the crime, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s mental and physical disorder, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. We also examine each unfair argument of sentencing between the defendant and the prosecutor about the unfair argument of sentencing.

The fact that all of the crimes of this case are recognized by the defendant, the fact that the defendant has agreed with the victims of the crime interfering with the business, and the fact that the defendant's health is not good is favorable.

Meanwhile, even though the defendant had been punished several times due to violent crimes, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the repeated crime period, and the crime of interference with each of the crimes of this case repeatedly obstructed the defendant's business operations without any special reason. The crime of interference with the performance of official duties and damage to public goods of this case is committed by assaulting a police officer who has performed his duties twice twice, thereby obstructing the police officer's legitimate performance of official duties by assaulting the defendant, obstructing the police officer's legitimate performance of official duties, damaging the toilet entrance of the detention room, which is a case of public goods, accompanied by the entrance door of the detention room, and the nature of the crime is very poor in light of the circumstances, contents, etc. of the crime, and it does not seem that the defendant made a serious effort to recover damage to the police officer who suffered damage due to the crime of interference