The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding (as to interference with the performance of official duties), the Defendant gathered a mother to obtain a temporary resident registration certificate of the elderly and visited the D community service center. The public official in charge was not allowed to issue a temporary resident registration certificate, on the ground that the public official in charge was unable to issue a temporary resident registration certificate, and he was assaulted by F and G, which are public officials, and did not assault F and G.

B. The crime of this case by the defendant with mental disorder is committed in a state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. According to the witness F, G, and L’s legal statements, field photographs, and CCTV images of the community service center, the Defendant’s assaulted F and G, which are public officials, as stated in the facts charged that interfere with the performance of official duties in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is rejected.

3. In light of the record of judgment on the assertion of mental and physical disorder, the Defendant committed the instant crime under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is not accepted.

4. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not vary from the first instance court’s judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of discretion, even though the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not vary from the first instance court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision