The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, since the defendant's act was conducted in a state of de facto condition and did not have an intentional intent to obstruct emergency medical services, and it cannot be viewed that it was conducted in a state of mental disorder.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were identical to the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by explaining the judgment on the “determination of the Defendant’s assertion” in the judgment.

In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below (the circumstance that the defendant was unable to meet the awareness at the time of transfer to the F Hospital credit center on the day of the instant case and was in a situation where dialogue could be made), the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial were to be considered, there is no meaningful change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of this case are various.