All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (1) did not assault police officers, or there was no intention to interfere with police officers’ legitimate performance of their duties.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence of October, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (1) mismisunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, or embezzlement of occupational duties, the Defendant embezzled money owned by the representative of the O apartment occupants by consuming the money for personal purposes.

(B) The Defendant who attempted to commit fraud was aware that the minutes of the O apartment occupant representative meeting were forged or forged, and was submitted as evidence in the lawsuit, and thus, he/she had the intention of deception.

(2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the part of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant: (a) driven a car at around 15:00 on October 10, 2015; (b) was controlled by L and M as “violation of the prohibition of cutting off” by a police officer; and (c) was demanded to present an identification card; (d) was found to have attempted to enter the Defendant’s personal information into a PDA to receive a resident registration certificate from the Defendant for a penalty payment notice; (c) the Defendant was pushed down with L’s front part and retail after cutting down; and (d) the Defendant was pushed down with L’s front part of the M’s resident registration certificate received by the Defendant; and (e) was pushed down with the Defendant’s resident registration certificate and brought the Defendant’s resident registration certificate to the Defendant’s resident registration certificate by being pushed down with his arms and descendants; and (e) according to the above acknowledged facts, the Defendant committed assault by a police officer performing lawful duty to notify a penalty payment.

I would like to say.

3. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. (1) The Defendant’s summary of this part of the facts charged is the victim’s O apartment in Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant case”). From January 10, 2008, the Defendant from around January 10, 2008.