The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles and misconceptions of facts, the Defendant was under a minor speech with other prisoners, and did not need pressure against the Defendant, but a correctional officer took the Defendant’s neck by cutting the Defendant’s neck in his arms, thereby damaging the Defendant. In order to prevent the Defendant from going beyond, the Defendant was only flickly licked, and there is no fact that the Defendant was her buck with E.

In addition, even if the defendant assaulted E, as mentioned above, E was first illegal and the defendant asserted against it, so the defendant's act does not constitute a crime of interference with the execution of official duties.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

According to the records, on March 23, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for assault, etc. at Suwon Friwon, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 8, 2016.

As above, the Defendant’s crime of assault, etc., for which judgment became final and conclusive, and the crime of assault, etc., as seen above, are concurrent crimes by the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt the punishment by taking into account equity and equity in the case of concurrent crimes

Therefore, the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained further.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

3. The lower court’s argument of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is that E is a witness of the police and the court of the lower court that made a statement consistent with the facts constituting an offense as indicated in the lower judgment, and that the statement is relatively consistent, specific, and reasonable, and thus, its credibility is recognized (it does not seem to have any special circumstances to deny the credibility of E’s statement recognizing its credibility). Correctional officers G