The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

10,000 won shall be collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Since it is not a legitimate official duty to prevent a police officer from leaving the defendant who intends to return to the police officer's house on his part, it cannot be punished for the obstruction of performance of official duties or the crime of insult. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of obstruction of performance of official duties and insult of philopon medication is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) Since the defendant refused to collect the original defense and the recovery of philopon medication, the defendant's examination of narcotics against the defendant's defense and her hair is illegal collection evidence as it is against due process, and it is illegally collected evidence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by recognizing the admissibility of evidence of the above narcotics appraisal statement is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the public prosecutor applied for changes in indictment to delete the “new” from the victim’s abusive expression in the facts charged in the instant case on the third public trial day of the trial. The subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.

However, the above part and the remaining facts charged of this case are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a single sentence should be sentenced. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in its entirety.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.