A. There is no fact that a police officer was sealed in the course of provokinging a food to F in mistake of facts, and there was no flabbation by a police officer, and there is no fact that a police officer was serving a food to the police officer.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court determined that the Defendant committed an assault against the police officer E on the grounds of witness E and F’s testimony, statement in the investigative agency, etc.

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the fact-finding and judgment by the court below are justified.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake cannot be accepted.

B. As to the determination of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing, since there exists an inherent area of the first instance court with regard to the determination of sentencing, an appellate court having the nature of ex post facto review ought to respect the determination of sentencing where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from

(2) In full view of the circumstances that the lower court rendered on the grounds of sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of all of the circumstances that the lower court rendered on the grounds of sentencing (i.e., imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and two years of suspension of execution, etc. on November 14, 2018, which became final and conclusive on November 22, 2018; and (ii) the instant crime was committed at the time when three months have not elapsed since the judgment became final and conclusive on November 22, 2018), including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., as indicated in the instant records and pleadings, the sentence against the Defendant is too excessive, even if the lower court imposed on the Defendant.