The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the facts charged of the instant case, injury.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Since police officers first assault the Defendant, etc. to perform their official duties, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant responded to this and thereby interfered with the Defendant’s performance of official duties. 2) In that sense, the injury of the victim S’s chillion, tension, etc. is not caused by the Defendant’s assault.

B. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant had a weak mental and physical disorder due to alcohol addiction, depression, etc.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. On June 29, 2013, the Defendant: (a) received a report from the said G while returning to Korea at H’s station located in the Jinhae-si, Jinhae-si; (b) on June 29, 2013, the Defendant was urged to calculate this part of the facts charged; (c) to return to Korea only because the time was delayed from the S, an assistant to the Rins of the Jinhae Police Station, who was called out after receiving the said G’s report.

그러자 피고인은 “야이 씹새끼야, 짜바리 새끼야, 니이름 뭐꼬, 옷을 벗겨버리겠다” 고 욕설을 하며 발로 S의 낭심, 허벅지, 복부 등을 3~4회 걷어찼다.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by the police officers regarding the maintenance of order, and at the same time, the Defendant inflicted an injury on S such as salt, tensions, etc. of the chills that need to be treated for about three weeks.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

C. The Defendant also recognized that the obstruction of performance of official duties 1 of the party deliberation 3-4 times, such as wing, buckbucks, bucks, and bucks, etc., are all the fact that 2-1 of the judgment of the party deliberation.

However, the defendant's defense does not constitute a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties since the defendant's defense was against S et al.'s assault or since S's execution of official duties was illegal at the time.

The judgment of the court below and.