A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by a fine of ten million won.

The defendant above.

A. On the judgment of the court of first instance on the erroneous determination of facts, the defendant only prevented a police officer from joining the defendant in the same way, and raised an objection against the police officer, and there is no fact of keeping the face of a police officer or committing a crime.

B. On the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

C. Each sentence of unfair sentencing (the first instance court: the imprisonment of 10 months and the second instance court: the fine of 1 million won) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on each of the grounds for appeal above, the first and second court sentenced the defendant to the above punishment by examining the above grounds for appeal ex officio before the judgment on each of the above grounds for appeal, and sentenced the defendant to each of the above punishment. The defendant filed an appeal against this case, and the court of the above judgment decided to hold concurrent hearings. The first and second court's crimes against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and must be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes under Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, all of the judgment of the court below cannot escape from reversal.

However, even though there is an ex officio reversal ground in the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant, the defendant's mistake of facts and the claim of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. In full view of the following facts: (a) the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; (b) the statements at G and H police stations; and (c) the Defendant led to the confession of all these facts charged at the court of the lower court; and (d) the confession was made in the presence of a defense counsel in the presence of a judge who has secured objectivity and fairness in accordance with the relevant statutes, and there are no special circumstances to suspect the credibility of the confession. In so doing, the Defendant was on December 8, 2014 as indicated in the facts charged.