A. There is no fact that the Defendant, who misjudgments the fact, did not know the chest of the police officer, and attempted to keep the face by the hand.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s statement of confession that recognized all his/her own crime in the court cannot be easily rejected unless there is an explanation that it is possible to understand the circumstances leading to the confession, and the Defendant’s confession in the investigative agency and the court of original instance is different from his/her statement in the court of appeal cannot be said to be doubtful of the probative value or credibility of the confession.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010). The Defendant led to the Defendant to commit the instant crime at the lower court. In so doing, even if examining the records of the instant case, it is difficult to view that there is any fact or circumstance that the Defendant could conceal the credibility of his/her confession statement at

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as above, the defendant continued to engage in a threatening speech to police officers dispatched for a considerable period of time, and the defendant's chest part of the police officer D was sealed once as stated in the facts charged, and the above D's face was attempted to be sealed once by her hand.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant.

B. The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties on the assertion of unfair sentencing needs to be avoided the legitimate exercise of public authority and be strict as an act impeding the function of the state’s legal order.

The defendant did not deny the crime of this case and did not recognize his responsibility, and the defendant was three times of violence-related crimes.