A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) interference with the performance of official duties (2018 Go-dan 1616), and the Defendant did not perform his duties at the time when the Defendant was at the time when he was in the police officer F, and even if the F was performing his duties at the time, the Defendant did not transfer himself to his family members, etc., thereby exercising a tangible power as indicated in this part of the facts charged, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of interference with the performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise and found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2) The injury (2018 Height 1616)’s “damage, etc. to the face” of the victim F is insignificant and natural healing is possible, and the said victim did not receive specific treatment. Therefore, the above injury cannot be deemed as an injury to the crime of injury.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise and found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3) Bodily injury (2018 Height 1821), victim I’s “gregying and staleing around snow,” is insignificant, natural healing is possible, and the above victim did not receive specific treatment. Therefore, the above injury cannot be deemed as an injury to the crime of injury.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise and found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The crime of this case by the defendant with mental disorder is committed in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court that interfered with the performance of official duties (2018 senior group 1616) are as follows: ① the police officer F at the time of the instant case was in charge of the patrol and situation at the 1,000 senior police station C police station, and ② the police officer was in charge of the patrol and situation.