The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fact-misunderstanding (the violence committed on September 14, 2016, the obstruction of business, the obstruction of the performance of official duties, and the injury) of the facts stated in the lower judgment, the Defendant committed assault against the victims as stated in the facts charged, injured, obstructed the performance of official duties, and interfered with the performance of official duties and the injury of Article 2-2(b) and (3) of the facts charged in the lower judgment, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the above facts charged, on the grounds that the Defendant did not interfere with the duties by force, as stated in the facts charged, and thus, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by taking account of each of the evidence in its judgment.

In light of the evidence, a thorough examination of the records of this case reveals that the court below's disposition that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just, and therefore there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts as pointed out by the defendant in the judgment

It does not seem that it does not appear.

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

B. The following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the type of force and the degree of power exercised by the Defendant with respect to the wrongful assertion of sentencing is not significantly significant; (b) the amount of damage caused by the instant larceny crime is not so significant; and (c) the Defendant seems to have a mental problem.

However, the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime because he/she was sentenced to punishment due to the obstruction of the performance of official duties, and was not subject to punishment, and thus repeatedly committed the instant crime, the Defendant had a large number of criminal records of different types of crimes and crimes, the Defendant did not agree with the victims, and the Defendant did not properly recover from damage is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

. The above.