A. Regarding the obstruction of the performance of official duties among the facts charged in this case, K and L, the police officer, made a statement corresponding to the above facts charged in the court below, and even if M and N are found guilty of this part of the facts charged, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that the court below acquitted the defendant for the same reason as indicated in the judgment of the court below, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 80 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of lectures to treat alcohol disorder) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts was clearly erroneous in the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court’s first instance trial, and the purport of the substantial direct deliberation principle adopted by our Criminal Procedure Act.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court, or in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of the additional examination of evidence until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court may not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the health department of this case and the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, correspond to the above facts charged.