The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) indicates the grounds for appeal filed by the Defendant on January 11, 2018, which was the period for submitting the written reasons for appeal, on the grounds of appeal, on the grounds of mental and physical weakness. However, the main text does not have any such assertion, and the main text does not make any such assertion separately from the unfair sentencing on the trial date at the trial court, and thus, the above assertion is sufficient to consider in determining the unfair sentencing.

Considering that the defendant committed a crime that interferes with the performance of official duties and damages to public goods while being taken by him, the sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, based on the records that he was sentenced to a suspended sentence due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2002 and a crime of interference with the performance of official duties, has been punished several times due to a violation of the same kind of Road Traffic Act. The police officers in charge in relation to the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties in this case and the crime of damaging public goods in this case want to be punished by the Defendant, and the fact that the nature of the crime is extremely poor is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the Defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflected, and that there was no record of being punished for the same crime for not less than 10 years after being punished due to the refusal of drinking alcohol measurement in around 2002 as above, the victims of the traffic accident of this case are relatively minor, and even considering the necessity of strict punishment for the city of public authority, it may be deemed that the damage was expanded under the influence of alcohol in the event of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and damage to public goods.

In full view of the following circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions in the instant records and arguments, including the circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is somewhat unreasonable.

I seem to appear.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified.