A. The Defendant’s act of misunderstanding facts is a legitimate defense against police officers who attempted to arrest the Defendant without justifiable grounds, and thus, not guilty.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, at the lower court, made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail, stating in the item “Determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of law as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine.

However, the crime of this case interferes with the performance of official duties of police officers by means of assaulting the defendant, such as leaving the police officer's head from the police station to his name tag, etc., and the victim police officers two failed, etc., and the nature of the crime is very bad, and it is recognized that the defendant consistent with the reasoning that it is difficult for him to understand up to the trial of the party, and did not reflect his wrong.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the lower court after the judgment of the lower court, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion.