The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by eight months of imprisonment.

1. The judgment of the court of this case on February 2, 201, on the ground that there was no intention to commit a crime, there was no causation, there was no illegality as self-defense or legitimate act, and that there was no illegality as to the point of obstruction of performance of official duties, and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties was not established because of illegal execution of official duties. ③ In relation to the point of intrusion upon a structure, it was known to the public court and entered the lost property: there was no intention to commit a crime; ④ there was no intention to commit a crime at the time; ④ there was no illegality as a legitimate act; ④ there was no intention to commit a crime; and ④ there was no repeated transmission such as a statement inducing fear, etc.

A. In light of the records, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court in light of the records, and all of the facts charged in the instant case is acceptable, and there is no illegality such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and each of the above arguments by the Defendant disputing this point cannot be accepted.

B. According to the statement of the mental appraisal report, etc. submitted in the trial as to the assertion of mental disorder, the defendant may recognize the fact that the accident was serious, generally inappropriate, and brutably inappropriate due to the editorial division, and other circumstances such as the background of each crime of this case, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime of this case are considered, there is sufficient room to view that the defendant was in a somewhat weak state of ability to discern things or make decisions due to the above mental disorder, etc., which are the soldiers at the time of each crime of this case, and therefore, the above argument by the defendant pointing this out is justifiable.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the decision on the allegation of unfair sentencing is omitted, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act.