The guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.

Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and fine for 2,00.

1. The first instance court’s judgment on the scope of this Court’s adjudication dismissed the prosecution against the victim C among the facts charged, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged, and the Defendant filed an appeal only against the conviction except the part dismissing the above public prosecution among the first instance court’s judgment, and the dismissal of the above public prosecution became final and conclusive as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the conviction part of the first judgment and the second judgment of the court below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below's judgment of misunderstanding of facts is erroneous as follows.

(1) At the time of the Defendant’s intrusion against the victim J, the Defendant found the victim’s implied “I” pension 303 in order to hear and assist the victim’s her talking that she had her arms. However, the Defendant did not intrude into the victim’s permission and did not go against her will.

(2) Although there is a fact that each intimidation against the victim L and K had expressed a desire for the victims by calling for a telephone, there is no warning that it would prejudice the family.

(3) Although violence against the victim Q and obstruction of the performance of official duties were committed, there was no fact that the victim spawns the back head or the face side was taken by drinking. While the police officers dispatched to the site at the time were spapits or spaspits on the drinking house floor before the police officers dispatched to the site at the time, there was no fact that the police officers spapits or spats the face of the police officers.

B. The punishment of each judgment of the court below (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, and a fine of 3 million won) on the point of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant ex officio, the defendant filed an appeal against the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance. This court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals cases. Each of the above offenses against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be the Criminal Act.