The judgment below

The part concerning the crime of damaging property and the crime of obstructing the performance of special duties in the judgment shall be reversed.

(b) the defendant;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to interference with the performance of special official duties in the holding), (1) G, a police officer, first drawn the defendant with a gun, and thus, the defendant brought a kitchen knife and set up against G.

In addition, the defendant saw a kitchen with a kitchen for the following side of the knife, but the kitchen knife does not seem to have any snow in G with the kitchen knife.

(2) Before entering an exercise of force to arrest the Defendant, police officers G did not provide the Defendant with an opportunity to defend himself/herself by stating the summary of the offense, reasons for the arrest, and appointment of a defense counsel pursuant to Article 200-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23(5) of the Rules on the Business of Judicial Police Officers, prior to entering the exercise of force to arrest the Defendant, and did not receive a written confirmation.

(3) Therefore, the police officer G, first of all, took a rifle toward the Defendant, brought the Defendant a kitchen, and set up against the police officer G, thereby constituting a legitimate defense. Since G’s arrest does not constitute legitimate execution of official duties due to the failure to comply with due process, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of obstructing the Defendant’s act of obstructing the performance of special official duties.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the 3 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of damaging property and the crime of obstructing the performance of special duties in its holding, and the 2 years of suspended execution with prison labor for the 8 months of the exercise of rights in its holding, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court on the argument that police officers G laid the Defendant with a rifle, and that the Defendant did not have any snow in the kitchen knife with a kitchen, the Defendant saw the kitchen knife as first in the lower court’s judgment, and met the police officer G with the kitchen knife, and sufficiently recognized the facts of the Defendant’s snow using the kitchen knife with the kitchen knife in which G taken the gun, as stated in the lower judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(1) Police officers.