The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although misunderstanding of facts is face with high speech by the defendant, it is not memory that the defendant expressed his desire to the victim, and the victim misunderstanding that the defendant saw the defendant at a shop, which led to the misunderstanding of misunderstanding of facts, and thus, the case did not occur.

The defendant tried to go against the police in order to pay for Si expenses, and the defendant tried to take the police in the form of a mixed-level manner even after the police officer arrived at the police officer's time when he waits for the police, and then the police officer tried to neglect the statement of the defendant.

B. In light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime of unreasonable sentencing, the Defendant’s endeavor to reach an agreement, and the fact that the Defendant does not repeat the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment of KRW 3 million is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, could interfere with the victim C's drinking business, and sufficiently recognize the fact that the victim D, who is a police officer, was insulting, by taking a bath to the victim. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts 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 as to 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

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted at the trial were to be considered, there is no meaningful change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and discretionary.