All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (with respect to the acquittal portion of reasons, the Defendant acknowledged the facts charged that the victimized police officer was “two times” at the court of original instance. Although witnesses and victimized police officers did not state the number of face values “two times”, it is sufficient to reinforce the Defendant’s confession inasmuch as the Defendant stated to the effect that “inasmuch as the witness and the victimized police officer did not state the number of face values at the time and place indicated in the facts charged, and at the same time and place as indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant would be punished and the Defendant would have

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground that there is no evidence of reinforcement of the confession, and found the defendant guilty only once, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service) is unreasonable as it is excessively unhued.

B. The lower court’s punishment is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. On January 5, 2018, the Defendant of the instant facts charged: (a) around 00:11, the Defendant: (b) recognized the face of F on two occasions in order to issue a notice of adjudication to PDA; (c) found the Defendant guilty on two occasions; and (d) found the Defendant guilty of the second part of the charges on the part, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant, upon receiving a report, failed to pay the drinking value without any justifiable reason by the slope F belonging to the E District in the Cheongdong Police Station Ear-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; and (b) the Defendant did not pay the drinking value without any justifiable reason.

Indeed, assault was committed.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the referral of the police officer to the trial.

B. The lower court and the lower court’s judgment are based on the same reasons as the lower court’s reasoning.