A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not assault the victim’s body when drinking the victim F’s body, etc. with regard to the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, and as to the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, Defendant A did not interfere with legitimate execution of official duties by assaulting the above police officers, as stated in the judgment of the court below, since the police officers K and L want to illegally arrest the victim in the act of committing an act of committing an offense in violation of the law at the time. As to the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, Defendant A was not erroneous. 2) The sentencing of the court below (a fine 2.5 million

B. With regard to the facts constituting a crime as indicated in the judgment below, Defendant B: (a) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles against Defendant B 1; (b) resisting the police officer who tried to illegally arrest Defendant A to resist to the police officer who attempted to unlawfully arrest Defendant A; (c) obstructed him by having the police officer’s chest by demanding that he interfered with the performance of official duties; (d) K’s chest by a legitimate act or self-defense to defend himself; and (e) prevented the police officer’s grandchildren to prevent the illegal excessive arrest against Defendant A; and (e) there was no interference with the lawful performance of official duties by assaulting the above police officer. (b) The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C1) The Defendant C was in the state of mental and physical disability by drinking at the time of the instant crime. Defendant C was in the state of mental and physical disability. 2) The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below's assertion of mistake of facts as to the defendant A, B's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in the judgment of the court below, and in particular, the witness E's statement at the court below that "the defendant A was faced with two backs, and F was invaded by one of the defendants, and there was physical fighting between the defendant A, E, and F."