The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the point of special injury, the Defendant did not assault the victim with 32 TV, which is a dangerous object. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, which erred by misunderstanding of facts. 2) In relation to the point of special obstruction of performance of official duties, the Defendant only attempted to restrain B’s act, but did not intend to participate in B’s special obstruction of performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination of mistake, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) the summary of the evidence of the judgment and the “decision on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of the materials submitted at the trial court, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment, and all of the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and pleadings in this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too so excessive that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.