All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, who obstructed the performance of official duties, was out of the police officer’s ske, and did not flab a police officer’s breath.

B) The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, but did not drive a vehicle (the instant vehicle) indicated in the facts charged.

At the time, the Defendant was waiting for an acting driver, and was on board the instant vehicle, but did not comply with the police officer’s request for alcohol measurement because the Defendant did not recognize that the vehicle was in a 1 meter volume.

2) The punishment of the lower court (the first instance court: the imprisonment of 10 months, and the second instance court: the imprisonment of 6 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence No. 1 of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

This Court reviewed the appeal cases against the judgment below together, and since each of the offenses of the judgment below is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

Despite the above reasons for reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to a trial by the party.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The police officer’s failure to obstruct the performance of official duties stated in the written statement that “the Defendant exceeded, and saw off, flaps, while taking a bath as stated in the facts charged.”

At that time,

C Also, investigative agencies make statements consistent with the statements of the above police officers.

In addition, there is no reason to suspect the credibility of each of the above statements, so it can be recognized that the defendant assaults a police officer as stated in the facts charged.

B. As to the assertion that the Defendant was not driving, the Defendant’s refusal to take a drinking alcohol measurement is against health belts, CCTV-cape photographs, and CCTV video CDs.