The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven months.

Of the facts charged of this case, violence is committed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of legal principles (as to obstructing the performance of official duties by the Defendant on September 30, 2017), the Defendant, at the time, was convicted of a penalty due to an act disturbing drinking and became final and conclusive by committing an act disturbing drinking, and the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced.

② In addition, the arrest of flagrant offenders at the time was illegal, and thus, it was not legitimate to perform official duties.

B. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol.

(c)

The sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the gist of assault in the judgment ex officio is as follows: (a) the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol from “D main points” located in Seosan-si, Seosan-si, on February 14, 2017, she took a bath to the victim E (e.g., the victim E (e., the age of 51) who was seated and carried on the next table without any justifiable reason; and (b) took three times the victim’s buck on his/her hand with his/her hand.

This is a crime falling under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Code, and according to Article 260 (3) of the Criminal Code, a public prosecution can not be instituted against the explicit will of the victim.

According to the records, the victim E may be recognized as having expressed his/her wish not to punish the defendant on June 5, 2018, which was before the judgment of the court below was rendered after the prosecution of this case was instituted. Thus, the court below should dismiss the prosecution against this part of the facts charged pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the law.

Since the lower court rendered a single sentence on the ground that this part and the remaining parts found guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower judgment cannot be maintained in its entirety.

However, the above reasons for reversal of authority are still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. The defendant-appellant.