The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (ten months of imprisonment, two years of probation, observation of protection, and community service order 160 hours) by the court below is too uneasy and unreasonable.

B. (1) The Defendant, at the time of misunderstanding the facts, was found guilty of all the facts charged of the instant case, even if he was able to see the Defendant’s own misunderstanding of the facts, she was off the floor by cutting off the bank and clothes, and did not want the police officer to do so, and there was no intention of assault or damage to the police officer.

The sentence sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. According to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, the Defendant’s oral statement at the Defendant’s trial court, etc., the following: (a) on August 31, 2017, the Seoul Central District Court (2017 High Court Decision 3281, the Defendant may be found to have been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties in the Seoul Central District Court on August 31, 2017; (b) for two years of probation; and (c) for two

Thus, the crime of this case committed before the above judgment becomes final and conclusive and the crime of obstructing the execution of official duties is in the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Code, and it is necessary to apply Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Code, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. We examine the above ex officio ground for reversal as to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, since the judgment of this court is still necessary.

A. In relation to a crime of interference with the performance of official duties, violence is not necessarily required directly or indirectly as an exercise of tangible force against a public official who performs official duties (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do326, Mar. 24, 1981, etc.). The intention in the crime of interference with or damage to the performance of official duties is sufficient to do so, and it is not necessarily required to be confirmed.

B. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower judgment, and the lower court against this assertion, on the two to three sides of the lower judgment.