All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

No. 4 of seized evidence (e.g., small)

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the part of the judgment of the court below as to the crime of interference with the performance of official duties by mistake of facts (No. 2), the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, although the defendant did not interfere with the performance of official duties by taking a bath or assault against the police officer E.

B. As to the part of the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, the judgment of the court below which did not recognize the mental or physical loss or mental weak condition is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(c)

The sentence of the judgment below that was unfair in sentencing (the judgment of the court of first instance: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 2 years: imprisonment with prison labor for 5 months) is unfair.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the judgment of the lower court was rendered, and the Defendant filed an appeal against each of the above two appeals cases, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings. Each of the offenses committed by the lower judgment against the Defendant is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and it will be determined below.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact, and in particular, according to the protocol of police statement about E, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant assaulted and interfered with the execution of duties by committing an assault to police officers E, as stated in the judgment of the second instance judgment.

(c)

According to the records of judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, it is recognized that the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of committing the crime interfering with the performance of official duties of this case, but the background and circumstances of each crime of this case.