All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the crime of injury by interfering with the execution of special official duties as indicated in the judgment below, Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the victim’s injury to the 2 flooded on the left-hand side and the Defendant’s injury to the 6th labing of the upper-hand side (hereinafter “the instant injury”)

Since it was caused by the victim's rifle, the defendant carried a dangerous object and carried the gun.

In light of this, the defendant cannot be charged with the crime causing injury or injury to the execution of special duties.

B) Furthermore, the instant injury was caused by the Defendant, while the Defendant was unaware of the police officer’s performance of official duties, against the victim, and the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to obstruct the execution of special official duties.

2) The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder which lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions by drinking alcohol at the time of committing a crime causing interference with the performance of special duties as indicated in the lower judgment.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 years of imprisonment) is too heavy.

B. Prosecutor’s improper sentencing: The lower court’s sentence is too minor.

2. Determination

A. Whether the defendant can be held liable for the crime of causing interference with the performance of special official duties (the existence of objective constituent elements) following the occurrence of the injury in this case is an aggravated crime resulting in the death or injury of a public official by showing the threat of organization or majority, or by assault and intimidation against a public official carrying a dangerous object, and thereby causing the death or injury of a public official. As a result, the perpetrator is not required to be aware of the result, and is sufficient if the perpetrator was at fault (see Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1720, Oct. 10, 1997; 2007Do618, Jun. 26, 2008; 2007Do618, Jun. 26, 2008; 94Do2842, Jan. 20, 1995). Thus, the punishment is aggravated even if the perpetrator did not have predicted the result (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2842, Jan. 20, 1995).