All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine merely caused a police officer F’s arms to re-influence, so there was no intention to assault a police officer, and such exercise of force does not constitute assault in the crime of interference with the performance of official duties.

2) Improper sentencing

B. Prosecution’s improper sentencing

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below in light of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below as to the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of

We cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion of factual mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

① Police Officers F clearly known that “I’s act may constitute a crime of assault” to the interester, the Defendant, and I, when I, the Defendant, and I, an agent for the Defendant.

② 피고인은 경찰관 F로부터 위와 같은 말을 듣자, 경찰관 F에게 “ 마 이게 무슨 폭행이고 ”라고 하면서 경찰관 F의 가슴을 강하게 때렸다( 경찰관 F는 원심 법정에서 이 사건 범행 당시 폭행 상황에 관하여 “ 제 상체가 뒤로 밀려날 정도의 세기였고 그 당시에 ‘ 퍽’ 소리가 크게 났습니다.

“The statement was made”.

F’s statement was at the site of the instant crime

G In the court of the court below, "the defendant made the chest of a police officer."

I did not know that it was not close.

”라고 진술한 내용 및 경찰관 H이 원심 법정에서 “ 피고인이 F을 때려 ‘ 퍽’ 하는 소리가 났었다.

If the defendant did not have the intention to assault, the F did not go to F when he decided that F would have been in his possession.

He had to go through a large sound, and threatened him.

It was sufficiently intentional.

I think I think.

(b) consistent with the stated content. (b)