The guilty part of the judgment of the court below and the special obstruction of performance of official duties against I shall be acquitted.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

(2) In light of the above, the Defendant’s act is deemed as an indirect form of force on the injured soldiers in light of the following: (a) misunderstanding of facts on the part of the Defendant’s case [the acquittal part (the point of each special obstruction of performance of official duties againstG, H, and I)] interpreted that the assault and threat on the part of the lower judgment was broad; and (b) the place where the Defendant’s special obstruction of performance of official duties was committed is the place beyond the Civilian Control Line, and G, H, and I are performing the duty of controlling the access of the vehicle at the sentry, which is the injured soldiers; and (c) the Defendant’s act is in progress without lowering the speed despite having to move

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to view that the Defendant committed assault against the victimized soldiers.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications, two years of suspension of qualifications, confiscation) is too uneasible and unfair.

Part of the medical treatment and custody claim case: Provided, That as examined below, the grounds for appeal concerning the medical treatment and custody claim filed by the prosecutor shall not be stated in the

When a prosecutor files an appeal against a prosecuted case, the medical treatment and custody application case shall be deemed to have been filed pursuant to Article 14 (2) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Medical Treatment and Custody Act").

Judgment

A double indictment, which is a reason for dismissing a public prosecution under Article 327 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, based on the ex officio judgment on each special obstruction of performance of official duties against AD, AF, and I, constitutes a reason for ex officio investigation. If a double indictment, which is a reason for ex officio investigation, is lawful, the court of appeals shall decide without any need to decide whether the grounds for appeal have been submitted or whether the appeal is included in the grounds for appeal, if it is legitimate.

Therefore, prosecutors.