A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, did not intimidation or insult a prison officer D by speaking as stated in the facts constituting a crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and even if so, the Defendant made such speech.

Even if this does not constitute intimidation, it does not constitute a crime of interference with the execution of official duties, and it does not violate social rules and is not illegal as it was committed in the course of responding to illegal execution of official duties, such as assault by a correctional officer or harsh

2) The Defendant had mental and physical loss or mental weakness at the time of committing the instant crime.

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

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and on this basis, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation on the ground that the Defendant’s statement to a correctional officer D on the grounds of the circumstances described in detail under the title of “determination on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion” was admitted, and it is reasonable to view that the above statement by the Defendant is not merely merely an expression of an objection against administration or an emotional abusive view, but also constitutes intimidation against a correctional officer’s obstruction of performance of official duties. It cannot be deemed that the Defendant made the above statement in the course of an unlawful performance of official duties, such as a prison officer’s suspicion, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a justifiable act.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.