A. The Defendant did not commit each of the crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is acceptable, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, on October 24, 2017, as follows: (a) the Defendant damaged the head of the South-gu headquarters’s office correction device, a public object building on the same day; (b) obstructed legitimate execution of duties by assaulting public officials E, etc. on the same day; and (c) sufficiently recognizes the fact of obstructing legitimate performance of duties by gathering waves, which are dangerous objects on November 30, 2017, public officials E,

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In such a case, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court on the ground that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the first instance court.

In addition, even if considering all the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the records and theories of this case, such as the criminal history, age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc. of the defendant, and the circumstances after the crime, such as the situation after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below is deemed appropriate, and it is too heavy to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

We do not accept the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.