All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant did not use violence to the extent that the mistake of facts constitutes interference with the execution of official duties.

2) Legal principles are misunderstandings of legal principles or legitimate defense ① interference with the execution of official duties: acts to oppose the excessive suppression of public officials, who are victims, constitute legitimate acts.

(2) A point of injury: A victim's defense or legitimate act is a response to the victim's defense in order to attack another person instigates him/her to attack the defendant.

B) At the time of committing each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was physically and mentally deprived or physically weak due to mental illness, etc.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one month imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, since the defendant could sufficiently recognize the facts of assault by exercising the direct force against the victims who were in charge of the duty of the Supreme Court office security, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. Judgment 1 on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle is whether an act of a political party or legitimate defense is applicable), which is acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, that is, the victim, who is a public official in charge of the duty of the Supreme Court office security, has access to the office building beyond a fenced time after work and entry into the office building constitutes legitimate performance of official duties, and it does not constitute excessive suppression as a legitimate performance of official duties. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s place of crime.