The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine’s sentencing based on statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the first instance court's sentencing should be respected in principle unless there are such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (B)

Defendant

In light of the above legal principles as to A, the court below erred in the performance of official duties by assaulting three police officers, such as the Defendant’s violation of the Road Traffic Act, violence-related crimes, obstruction of the performance of official duties, etc., even when the Defendant was detained in the detention room, and thereby obstructing the performance of official duties by assaulting three police officers while carrying the test satisfing and carrying the police officer who was dispatched to the police after receiving a report.