A. The Defendant did not interfere with the performance of his duties by threatening police officers, as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one month of imprisonment, one month of confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., police officers G made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that “at the time, the defendant gets knife and knife a police officer knife his knife at several times” (Evidence No. 19, 20) and stated that “at the time, the defendant knife a police officer knife his knife his knife with him” (Evidence No. 19, 20), and the defendant led to confession in the court below as to this part of the facts charged, and there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of such confession, the defendant can be acknowledged to have interfered with the execution of his duties by threatening police officers as stated in this part of the facts charged, and there is no error

B. Regarding the assertion on unfair sentencing, there are circumstances to consider the allegation on unfair sentencing: (a) prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, D, the victim of the crime of assault and injury, having expressed his/her intention not to punish the Defendant; (b) preparing and submitting a written application to the Defendant that H interfered with the disposition that H interfered with the crime of special obstruction of performance of official duties was committed against the Defendant at the trial; and (c) the fact that the state of visual disability is Class 6 and health is bad; (d) on the other hand, the Defendant several occasions due to violent crimes