A. The act of assaulting a defendant in the course of arrest constitutes an unlawful performance of official duties. Thus, the defendant's act is merely against the police officers' unlawful performance of official duties, and it does not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and fine of 600,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were identical to the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) the summary of the evidence of the judgment was

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and pleadings in this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.