A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles stated in the facts charged, which led to the failure of a parking control official to perform his duties, and did not assault the above public official as stated in the facts charged. Meanwhile, since the insufficient performance of duties by the parking control official at the time cannot be seen as lawful performance of duties, even if the Defendant’s act constitutes an assault, this does not constitute an obstruction of performance of official duties. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment otherwise determined that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant asserted the same purport as in the lower court’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine. The lower court acknowledged the Defendant guilty of charges by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the above assertion on the grounds of detailed circumstances acknowledged by the foregoing evidence in the part on “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion.” 2) A thorough examination of the lower court’s determination by comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of mistake of facts or obstruction of performance of official duties, such as the Defendant

The specific reasons are as follows.

(1) The driver of any motor vehicle provided for in subparagraph 2 or 4 of Article 32 of the Road Traffic Act or Article 32 of the Road Traffic Act shall be prohibited from stopping or parking a motor vehicle in any of the following places:

provided that this Act or.