All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (i.e., mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Defendant and bereaved family members are likely to establish G a tent.

there is no fluorous statement.

G did not have the authority to permit the use of the E square, and attempted to continue to dispute with the bereaved family members by repeating the subjective valuation of value to deny the activities of the F bereaved family members, and therefore, the G was in lawful performance of official duties.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Shebly 200,000 won for the first deliberation of sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

(b) The first deliberation sentence of the Prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the first instance trial.

The first instance court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by stating in detail the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in paragraph 1 and the judgment on it, under the title of “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment.

Compared with records, the recognition and judgment of the first deliberation is justifiable.

The defendant's factual mistake and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, the crime of this case was committed by assaulting and injuring a public official on the legitimate execution of official duties, and its liability for such crime is somewhat minor.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Although the defendant had been punished for the same crime, he again committed the crime of this case.

However, there are circumstances that may be taken into account the motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime.

Victim G does not want to be punished by the defendant.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, details and results of the crime, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and pleadings, it is not unfair for the first deliberation punishment to be too heavy or unreasonable.

The argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

3. Conclusion.