The defendant did not suffer from misunderstanding of facts because he did not suffer from excessive Ampha so that he did not ask the clothes of the police, and did not ask the blick, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant had the intention of obstructing the performance of official duties.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts also argued that the defendant did not ask the police officer's winter, and that the defendant did not have any intention to interfere with the performance of official duties.

The court below rejected the defendant's above assertion on the premise that D's statement was credibility, and found guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that D's statement was made on the ground that D, a police officer, consistently stated that "the defendant, who was sent by the defendant who caused the pain, kidddds the right side of the defendant by asking for the pain," and that D's photograph on the upper part of D's body taken after the case, was in the upper part of D's body.

In light of the content of the judgment of the first instance court and the evidence examined by the first instance court, if there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or if it is deemed that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is significantly unfair in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time the conclusion of the appellate trial is concluded, the appellate court shall not reverse the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from that of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do1748, Jul. 24, 2019).