All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. As to Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts, Defendant 1 did not constitute a crime of intimidation under the Criminal Act on the ground that: (a) the Defendant did not assault the following correctional officers C by walking the exhaustor twice; (b) the Defendant did not have any speech as stated in the facts charged; (c) even if said speech was made, it is merely an emotional stimulated and hinging that it merely took a bath, and does not constitute a crime of intimidation under the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the obstruction part of the performance of official duties to C, namely, a prison officer C consistently stated the fact that a prison officer was assaulted by the police and the defendant in a manner suitable for the loss of the ship by generating the ship, etc. in the court of the court below, and the convicted prisoner H at the same site with the above C stated in the police that “The police officer stated that “I would like to close the ship with the defendant's flag as a hand, and I would have caused the defendant to have caused the second loss of the ship that he sawd in the ward twice,” and in the court of the court of the court below, “The defendant was the defendant.”

D. In light of the consistent and specific circumstances before and after the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant’s act of assaulting a correctional officer to interfere with the performance of official duties, as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, is sufficiently recognized. It is sufficiently recognized that C, as described in the facts charged of the instant case, has obstructed the Defendant’s act of assaulting a correctional officer to the effect that C, with the intention to close the exhauster and lowering his hand, she taken the exhauster’s flag, she saw her her hand, and C, her hand, and her hand her hand, etc.