The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, mental or physical disorder, and improper sentencing);

A. In the judgment of the lower court on November 3, 2017, regarding the part concerning interference with the performance of official duties by a police officer on November 3, 2017, the Defendant did not receive a notification of the following principles: (a) at the time of arrest, such as the reason for arrest, the right to appoint a defense counsel, etc.; (b) such police officer did not interfere with the performance of official duties in the course of a port against illegal performance of duties by the police officer; and (c) thus, the Defendant did not constitute a

② At the time of the original adjudication, with respect to each of the attempted and attempted crimes against the victims B of the 2017 High Order 2558, B made the same remarks as indicated in the facts charged in the part of the charge of the crime of conflict in order to unfairly cover the Defendant’s daily allowance and compensate the damage. Therefore, there was no intention to commit the conflict.

B. There is no fact that I would like to change the amount of KRW 40 million to B under the pretext of an agreement.

③ At the time of the original adjudication, there was no assault in relation to the part of the assault against the victim V of the 2017 Height 2746, by putting the head debt of V and qui with the hand-to-saw.

④ On July 23, 2017, 2017, 2017, 2017, 2017, 2746, the police officer unilaterally tried to listen to X’s horses and to attract himself/herself, even though there was no error by the Defendant, and the police officer’s act of expressing his/her resistance against such unreasonable performance of duties constitutes a crime of interference with the performance of official duties, on the ground that it is merely a fighting between the police officer and the body of the police officer.

B. At the time of preventing each of the instant crimes with mental disorder, the Defendant was physically and mentally weak.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On November 3, 2017, the Defendant rendered a judgment on the part of obstructing the performance of official duties on his part on November 3, 2017, arguing that this part of the appeal was the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the said assertion by stating in detail the decision.

The judgment of the court below is detailed.