All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

The seized knife.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

With regard to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Goyang-gu District Court's Goyang-gu District Court's Goyang-do's Goyang-do's 132 square meters high-level AG large 132 square meters high-level housing (hereinafter "the instant housing") has completed the compulsory execution, but assigned ten service providers' employees and controlled the entry into the instant housing. At the time of the Defendant's assault to AH, the execution officer at the time of the execution officer's execution officer's execution officer's execution of duties was completed or the execution of duties was unlawful, so the Defendant does not constitute the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties (On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not have acquired illegal profits as the grounds for appeal for each crime in the judgment of the second instance, but it appears to be the allegation of unfair sentencing). The punishment of the court below's 1, 2000 square meters, and the punishment of the court below's 6 months, and 2 years

The above-mentioned sentence sentenced by the second court is too unfasible and unfair.

Judgment

Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, the first and second judgments were rendered on the defendant, and the first and second judgments on the defendant were rendered, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below on the second appeal. The court decided to hold concurrent hearings on the above two appeals. The first and second judgments on the defendant are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the first and second judgments on the defendant cannot be maintained as they are.

As such, even though the judgment of the court below on the first and second grounds for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court of this case.

No. 1. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.