The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding 1) The Defendant did not have received a demand for alcohol measurement from a police officer who was dispatched to the scene at the time of violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence of alcohol measurement), and the Defendant first refused a request for alcohol measurement by a police officer at the district level, but later responded to a police officer’s demand for alcohol measurement. 2) The police officer sent to the scene at the time of the Defendant’s defense level but did not contain any assault by a police officer as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, although the Defendant was involved in the act of obstruction of performance of official duties and the injury to the police officer at the time of the Defendant’s unilaterally, without notifying the Defendant of the doctrine that he did not cause any disturbance to the Defendant, and the Defendant was unilaterally resisted by the Defendant, and in the process, the Defendant was merely passive

C) The degree of injury to victimized police officers E was exaggerated. B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one month of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable. 2. ex officio determination on February, the scope of the punishment on each crime as stated in the lower judgment’s decision in the application of the statutes of the lower court is imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than ten years and not more than ten months (the statutory penalty for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence of measurement) among the facts charged in the instant case is imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than three years or a fine not less than five million won but not more than ten million won, and the lower court decided to punish the said crime

The court below's sentence of imprisonment with prison labor exceeding the above applicable sentencing range without additional mitigation is illegal and such illegality has influenced the judgment. In this regard, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The court below legitimately adopted the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement).