A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the police officer intentionally did not assault the police officer, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, when the police officer took the defendant's lock in the course of obstruction of performance of official duties by mistake of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, F, witness police officers F, and G police officers G, who were the victim, made a statement corresponding to this part of the facts charged, and considering the consistency of the statement and the details of the statement, etc., the credibility of the statement can be recognized when considering the following circumstances, not the defendant and the victim are faced while the defendant was on the guard, but the defendant's head was faced with the victim's entrance at the police line with the victim's head while the defendant was traveling at the police line, and even if the defendant had suffered from the victim's pain, even if the defendant could have complained of the victim's pain by causing somewhat strong pressure on the locks of the defendant, this part of the argument by this part of the defendant is without merit.

B. The lower court sentenced the above punishment by taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant in the trial of the lower court are already sufficiently considered when determining the sentence in the lower court, and there is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing conditions in the trial of the lower court.

The age, character and conduct, environment, and motive of the crime of the defendant;