All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) On the ground that there was a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the charge of obstructing the performance of official duties among the facts charged in the instant case should be pronounced not guilty, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby recognizing the Defendant a obstruction

① In relation to the interference with the execution of official duties against I, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a assault to the extent that the Defendant’s chest by hand does not constitute an assault to the extent that the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, on the sole basis of a single citizen’s chest by hand, and the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act, since the Defendant was assaulted

② With regard to the interference with K’s performance of official duties, as if the Defendant used K to have a motion picture, the Defendant was faced with K’s hand, which had been outside the phone, and did not have the intention of assault.

K’s taking of the Defendant with a portable phone without the Defendant’s consent cannot be deemed lawful execution of official duties. Thus, even if it is avoided, it does not constitute a crime of interference with the execution of official duties.

③ As I and K arrested the Defendant by arbitrarily exercising their authority without satisfying the legitimate requirements for the arrest of flagrant offenders, such arrest of the Defendant in the act of committing an offense is unlawful.

2) The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the legal principle that the defendant will die.

In light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant had the intention to commit murder, inception, in light of the fact that: (b) the Defendant was found to find out the scene of the instant case; (c) the knife or the knife was knife at the hand; (d) the knife was knife to the face of the victim; and (e) the Defendant committed the crime at the wind pressured by the knife;

I would like to say.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the Defendant at the time of committing the instant crime.