A. The Defendant’s defense counsel by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles asserts that “the above crime is not committed with an intention to conceal an intentional mistake and mistake of facts,” even in the case of writing and exercising electronic records, etc. on January 14, 2015. As such, there is room to interpret the Defendant as assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the above crime.

However, this part of the argument is not stated in the statement of grounds for appeal as of October 8, 2014, and it cannot be seen as the grounds for appeal filed within the lawful appeal period (the notification of the receipt of the trial record on the defendant's defense counsel was served on September 25, 2014, and the notification of the trial record on the defendant's defense counsel was served on October 2, 2014). The defendant and the defendant's defense counsel made a statement that recognized the whole guilty of each of the above crimes on the first trial date.

Furthermore, even if examining ex officio, this part of the lower judgment cannot be deemed to have been erroneous, so the above assertion is not separately determined, but should be considered in sentencing determination.

1) Around February 12, 2013, the waiting order issued by a slope X to recognize the crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights as to the abuse of authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights should be deemed based on the relevant laws and regulations, and the said waiting order is not lawful. Even if the said waiting order was lawful, the Defendant did not have any awareness that he would abuse his authority, and thus, does not constitute a crime of abusing authority and obstructing another’s exercise of rights, around August 3, 2013.