The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) With respect to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidations, etc.) from among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant found the convenience store on the day of the instant case, but there was no doubt that the Defendant merely asked the victim D to confirm who was reported, and there was no reason to say that “the Defendant is unable to carry out funeral due to misunderstanding of facts and unfashion.”

Even if the defendant made the above remarks, it cannot be deemed that there was a purpose of retaliation against the defendant, since the defendant merely made a negative expression as if the defendant had a desire to do so, and it did not have attempted to harm by identifying the reported person.

B) As to the insult of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not take a bath to H at the time, and the Defendant did not hear the Defendant’s horse, thereby inducing the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection. (C) Nevertheless, the lower court convicted all the facts charged in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.) and insult by erroneously interpreting and applying relevant statutes.

2) The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in the state of mental disorder or mental disability and mental disability. 3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the situation at the time of the case known by H’s statement, which is the damaged public official of the lower judgment, the type force of the Defendant’s use of H constitutes the assault of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and the Defendant’s intent to commit the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is recognized, and thus, the crime of obstruction of official duties is established. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles and violating the law. 2)