A. Defendant 1) Fact misunderstanding (Article 1 of the judgment below) F was on the second line, not on the body of the Defendant’s vehicle’s vehicle’s first line, but on the second line.

In addition, the defendant did not go to F by accelerating the vehicle to F, but just go to F's side at a certain speed.

Defendant 2: (a) only runs away from the F’s short end by the short end of the Defendant’s 2 seconds; (b) that the F was causing the same threat as that of the Defendant’s vehicle.

It is difficult to see it.

In addition, the defendant did not have any intention to obstruct the execution of official duties because he was only the escape to avoid the crackdown on drinking.

However, the court below's judgment that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-finding misunderstanding (non-indicted) Defendant sent a stop signal by a slope G with light blicking, and followed the vehicle by speed, despite approaching the direction of the Defendant’s vehicle.

In light of social norms, G was in a situation sufficient to feel the same threat as the vehicle was placed on the vehicle, and the defendant also has the intention to interfere with the performance of official duties.

However, the court below which rendered a not guilty verdict of this part of the facts charged erred by misunderstanding facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

었으며, 피고인이 이에 응하지 않고 속력을 내 어 돌진하자 위 봉으로 차량을 두드릴 만큼 가까이 있었던 사실이 인정되고( 피고인 차량이 F을 스칠 때 퍽 하는 소리가...