A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant assaulted H in order to oppose the remainder of the time and place indicated in paragraph 2 of the judgment, where the police officer h strokes from the police officer H.

Therefore, the defendant's act of assault is merely passive resistance to the execution of official duties in violation of law, and the defendant committed a crime of obstructing the execution of official duties.

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The Defendant committed the instant crime with mental and physical weakness resulting from mental illness, such as a shock disorder and a polar disorder.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which rejected the defendant's mental and physical disorder is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 1 and No. 2 in its holding, and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 3 in its holding) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the part of the crime of interference with the performance of official duties can be acknowledged that the police officer sent to the place specified in paragraph (2) of the judgment as stated in paragraph (2) of the judgment, upon receiving a report on the crime under paragraph (1) of the same Article, and the Defendant met the Defendant, and the Defendant started assaulting H without responding to the circumstances of the crime (see, e.g., Articles 33 through 34, 40, etc. of the investigation record). According to the above facts of recognition, the performance of official duties by H is lawful.

Therefore, the defendant's misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. In determining the existence and degree of mental disorder under Article 10 of the Criminal Act, the court may independently determine the existence and degree of mental disorder by taking into account the following factors: (a) the expert’s appraisal is not necessarily dependent on the expert’s appraisal; (b) the relevant records, such as the background and means of the crime; and (c) the actions before and after the crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1142, Jul. 25, 1997; 97Do142, Dec. 2, 2006>