A. The misunderstanding of fact (in the part obstructing the performance of official duties) merely led the Defendant’s head to the humd condition, leading the Defendant’s head to the humd condition, leading the Defendant’s head, leading the Defendant’s head to the humd, leading the Defendant’s head to the humf, and did not go beyond the humb

B. The sentence of the lower court against an unfair defendant in sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the community service order of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a witness’s statement based on the spirit of substantial direct deliberation as to the assertion of facts, the first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court’s first instance trial.

Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court by taking account of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings at the appellate court, the appellate court shall respect the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court, after directly summoning the victim, etc. as a witness, may believe the victim’s statement after examining the victim as a witness.

Based on the judgment of the court below, the court below convicted the victim and witness G of interference with the execution of official duties of this case. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim and witness G consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, and there are some differences between the statements in the investigative agency and the statements in the court of the court of the court below.