All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (the third judgment of the court below) did not mean that “the Defendant would throw away the dead body, will die out of, and die if seen in the snow,” and the victim did not have been in the house at the time.

B. Legal principles (the second judgment of the court below) revealed that the defendant had several dismissals at the time, but it is merely a defect that the police officer excessively resisted the performance of his duties.

C. Unreasonable sentencing (the first and third instances of sentencing) sentenced by the lower judgment (the first and third instances of sentencing: the first instance judgment: the fine of one million won, the third instance judgment: the fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant ex officio, the Defendant filed an appeal against all the judgment of the court below, and the arguments were combined in the trial. Each of the offenses recognized in the judgment of the court below is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in the judgment of the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the fact that the defendant stated that "the defendant would die before and after the victim's house, and die if seen in snow, it shall be discarded."

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. In light of the legal principles, the lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined as to the Defendant’s assertion to the purport similar to the Defendant’s argument at the trial, question the Defendant at the scene where the police officer was at the scene about gambling facts.