A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. On August 15, 2012, Defendant 1) mismisunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (excluding obstruction of performance of official duties and injury on October 5, 2012), Defendant did not commit an assault against Victim V. Even if the Defendant committed an assault, there was no causation between the act and the injury requiring approximately 12 weeks treatment. Thus, the lower court convicting Defendant of this part of the facts charged, in so determining, there was an error of misapprehending of legal principles or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B) Since the rest of the obstruction of business by the Defendant was merely present in the U.S., there was no intention to interfere with business, and since it is possible for a construction vehicle to proceed through another entrance while the U.S. is under way, it does not interfere with business. Even if interference with business was caused, religious activities should be guaranteed, and the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act. 2) Even if the Defendant was convicted of the Defendant, the lower court’s sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal portion of the original trial), even if the defendant did not directly lead to a year, and only used Kameras and used documentary evidence activities, it should be recognized that he could interfere with the work of the trial in collusion with other D opposing players. The judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The sentencing of the court below is too un

2. Determination

A. On August 15, 2012, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, namely, the victim police officer V, tried to move the Defendant who was prevented from entering the construction vehicle at the entrance of the project team.