A. In a case where a public official who is in charge of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles gets falbbbbling and spreads the Defendant’s fals, the Defendant’s act is merely an act recorded in the facts constituting a crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below in the process of spreading it. Thus, the Defendant’s act is a resistance against an unfair performance of official duties, and it does not constitute an act of obstructing another’

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the CCTV image on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it is confirmed that public officials D returned the body temperature to the left side of the Defendant, and the Defendant: (a) returned to the left side of the Defendant; (b) returned to the left part of D by Gap’s own hand; (c) there was no physical contact between the Defendant and D before the Defendant assaulted D (the body temperature does not directly contact the Defendant’s body); and (d) the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as an act to oppose the other party’s unlawful violence.

The defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is rejected.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial court. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court and the reasons for sentencing as indicated in the instant records and the trial process, it is not recognized that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too excessive.

The sentencing of the defendant is unfair.