A. Although the defendant misunderstanding the facts did not assault the police officer C's uniforms, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s confession at the court of first instance as to the assertion of mistake of facts alone is not likely to have the probative value or credibility of the confession, solely on the grounds that the confession at the court of appeal differs from the legal statement in the appellate court.

In determining the credibility of a confession, the credibility of a confession should be determined by taking into account whether the contents of the confession are objectively reasonable, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the motive or reason of the confession, and what is the circumstance leading up to the confessions, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confessions among other evidence than the confessions (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant led to the confessions after sufficiently reviewing the facts charged in this case with the assistance of the counsel from the state court in the court of the court of the court below, and sought a preference in sentencing. The defendant appears to have been aware of the meaning of the confessions in the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the first instance, and there is no circumstance to make the other confessions or motives, and the circumstances leading to a reasonable doubt.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant committed an assault by the police officer C, such as the instant facts charged, can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. 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 sentencing exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion.