The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000 (No. 2,000).

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were under the mental and physical state of the Defendant, while taking drugs as usual soldiers on the day of the instant case. However, the instant facts charged cannot be acknowledged as guilty, and it is not so, because the Defendant’s arms are in contact with the police officer B’s knives, due to a mistake that she forced the Defendant to put up his arms by inducing the Defendant.

There are reasons for mitigation of responsibility.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and neglected the grounds for mitigation of responsibility has errors of law by misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding legal principles

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that police officers B et al. sent to the site of the Defendant upon receiving a 112 report that “the foregoing person is likely to suffer danger because he/she was in the vicinity of the entrance of the subway station” was under the influence of alcohol, and at that time, the Defendant was seated on the road boundary seat while under the influence of alcohol, and the police officers et al. were seated on the police uniform, and the police officers et al. were asked to ask the Defendant who was called “where he/she was at will,” and the Defendant was able to recognize the fact that he/she was at the time when he/she was ho

According to the above facts, although the defendant was somewhat under the influence of alcohol at the time, it can be said that the defendant assaulted the above police officer under the condition that the other party was aware that he was a police officer in the process of performing official duties.

In light of the above circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the defendant lost or weak ability to discern things due to drinking, etc. at the time of the crime of this case.

Therefore, it is true.