The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: The intent or ability to pay the price was made: The victim was not committed on his/her own deposit: The charge of obstruction of performance of official duties on April 6, 2014 is limited to the police officer’s attempt to detain himself/herself without his/her proper examination, and it does not constitute the crime of obstruction of official duties. The charge of obstruction of official duties on April 4, 2014 does not constitute the crime of obstruction of official duties: (a) there was no act like this part of the facts charged; (b) the fact that the fact of causing damage to property was closed to the back of the front side of the taxi (which is not the front sentence); (c) however, there was no damage to the said door. (d) The sentencing of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (two years) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by authority, the prosecutor applied for permission to amend the Bill of Indictment with the content of changing the facts charged as stated in the following facts constituting a crime, and this court permitted it and changed the subject of the judgment. The court below sentenced the defendant to a single punishment on the grounds that each crime against the defendant, including this part of the facts charged, against the defendant, is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below no longer remains

Although there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court, which will be examined below.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendant destroyed the front door of the victim L-owned taxi operation.