Defendant

B Imprisonment for a period of eight months.

A. Defendant A1) The lower court found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged without considering the following circumstances. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

A) On the first instance judgment of the court below, the Defendant, who violated the law by 1766 case (i.e., the violation of the law by an attorney-at-law) in relation to the case in which the Defendant filed a lawsuit against G against G by the victim F to the 2015 Seoul District Court Seocheon-gun District Court Decision 2015Ga Office No. 633, but lost, filed an appeal, etc., the Defendant will substitute the entire case.

In the absence of delegation from the victim F, there was no money from the victim F to receive money from the victim F under the pretext of lawsuit proceeding, and only the victim F paid part of the expenses to be paid to the defendant B, the head of the attorney-at-law office.

D. The Defendant alleged that he/she infringed on the Victim F, as stated in Section 2-A of Article 2-1 of the judgment of the first instance court, at the time and place stated in Section 1. However, since the victim F did not have any injury, only the crime of assault is established, since the victim F expressed his/her intention not to punish the Defendant, the Defendant cannot be punished.

Article 2-2(b) of the judgment of the court of first instance that the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties does not interfere with the performance of duties by police officers L and N at the time and place specified in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the Defendant demanded that the Defendant plucked, plucked, plucked, and boarded on the vehicle to get on the vehicle on board the vehicle, and called “in front,” and it does not agree with the police officer with the intention of assaulting the police officer, but it goes out with inconvenience of self-esteem.

B) Of the Promissory Notes No. 2016 High Order 2016 High Order 3630, 2016 High Order 4871, the Defendant stated “Seoul-do” in the column for the place of issue, the place of payment, and the place of payment of the Promissory Notes No. 2016 High Order 2016 High Order 1, the Defendant stated “Seoul-do” in the column for the place of issue, the place of payment, and Paragraph 3.