A. Regarding the part that interferes with the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not see the face of a person who was a guest at the head of a door, such as written in the facts charged.

The time does not reach 30 minutes, simply with the customer.

As to the insulting part, the Defendant did not have a serious hump to the police officer, such as “Echchch chron, chume fribrate, fump, and fump,” as indicated in the facts charged.

Rather, the police officer expressed the will to the defendant, unlawfully suppressing him, and arrested him as a flagrant offender.

The defendant only responded to this.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby convicting all of the charges of this case.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted by the determination of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant interfered with the business of the head of the door by taking advantage of his motive and face, etc., as stated in the facts charged.

The defendant did not comply with the police officer's restraint who was dispatched by the report of the head of Hop House, and took a serious bath as stated in the facts charged.

On the other hand, there was an illegal or unfair measure asserted by a police officer in the course of arresting such defendant as a flagrant offender.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

The lower court did not err in its judgment that found all of the facts charged of this case guilty.

We do not accept the Defendant’s factual mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.

Compared with the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and changes in the instant case and the reasons for sentencing of the original judgment, the Defendant asserts as grounds for appeal.