The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One copy of the seized cellular phone (algal gallon).

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

In the statement of grounds for appeal, the Defendant alleged in the statement of grounds for appeal that “the Defendant did not have any fact to prices the victim with a mobile phone, and that the mobile phone does not constitute “hazardous objects” under the generally accepted social norms, and thus, cannot be viewed as a crime of causing special obstruction of performance of official duties,” and that mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were also alleged as grounds for appeal. However, as examined below, this court permitted changes to the name of the Defendant’s crime to “Obstruction of performance of official duties or injury,” and stated that the Defendant recognized all the charges changed from the third trial date ( September 2, 2016) of the trial. Accordingly,

2. Before making judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, we examine the case ex officio, and the prosecutor, at the trial, the name of the crime against the defendant.

Obstruction of Performance:

나. 상해”로, 적용법조를 “형법 제136조 제1항, 제257조 제1항, 제40조, 제48조 제1항”으로, 공소사실 말미의 “이로써 피고인은 위험한 물건인 휴대전화를 사용하여 경찰관의 112신고 처리에 관한 정당한 직무집행을 방해하고 피해자에게 이마 부위에 10바늘, 정수리 부위에 10바늘을 꿰매는 치료일수 불상의 상해를 가하였다.

”를 “이로써 피고인은 경찰관의 112신고 처리에 관한 정당한 직무집행을 방해함과 동시에 피해자에게 이마 부위 10바늘, 정수리 부위에 10바늘을 꿰매는 치료일수 불상의 상해를 가하였다.

"Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment has been filed, and this Court has permitted it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained due to changes in the subject of the judgment.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is justified for the ground of appeal by the defendant, as seen earlier.