All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of each judgment of the court below (the first judgment: imprisonment with prison labor; imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year; imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 2 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below, which did not recognize the fact of injury by the victim AJ as to the injury caused by special obstruction of performance of official duties, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the injury caused by special obstruction of official duties.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by the accused of ex officio determination and the prosecutor, each appeal case against the accused was consolidated in the trial. The facts constituting the crime of each judgment of the court below are in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below that rendered a separate punishment for the facts constituting the crime of each of the above cases cannot be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court and will be examined below.

B. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the first instance court stated that the Defendant was guilty of the injury resulting from a special obstruction of performance of official duties, as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime of the first instance judgment, and that the strike was to protruding the left hand hand of the AJ. However, on August 28, 2013, the AJ only disinfected the upper part of the investigation agency, and did not receive any specific treatment. The first instance court stated that the hospital did not have any guidance. The first instance court stated that the Defendant was put on a bandd, because it was not a large figure in the first instance court, and that the Defendant was bandd, as well as the Defendant’s injury photographs (the first instance court’s investigation record) submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant was externally present at the AJ’s left hand hand.