The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, 2016 High Order 135,271, 2017 High Order 49, a correctional officer’s illegal protective equipment was used. In the case of the High Order 2016 High Order 196, the Defendant’s act was not unlawful as a legitimate defense to cope with it, and in the case of the High Order 2016 High Order 236, the Defendant’s act does not constitute an interference with the performance of official duties, since the school officer was not in the course of performing his duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges of this case guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion.

B. The sentence of two-year imprisonment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable (it is also deemed that there was an unfair argument in sentencing in light of the contents of the instant circumstances, etc. stated in the grounds of appeal and the defense counsel’s assertion based thereon, etc.). 2.

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the assertion on the use of illegal protective equipment 1) The lower court also asserted that the Defendant was similar to the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court had the history of having been punished by force against public health doctors or correctional officers on the ground that the Defendant did not take his own request during the confinement in the prison even before the instant crime was committed, and thereafter, had used the force to a correctional officer repeatedly as a series of crimes in this case. In so doing, the Defendant was likely to interfere with a correctional officer’s legitimate performance of duties or undermine the safety or order of facilities by force, unless the correctional officer did not take his own request or the correctional officer’s attitude was expressed.

Since the correctional officers use protective equipment to the defendant, the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act").