The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

With respect to the charge of interference with general traffic among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant took part in an open assembly on July 6, 2013, but there was no fact that the scope of the assembly report was remarkably deviates from the scope of the assembly report, and there was no perception thereof.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of interference with general traffic and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence of the prosecutor’s presentation of prosecutor’s inspection, such as each film and video CD (Evidence No. 20 No. 56) and CVD (Evidence No. 56) and the testimony in each investigation agency of F, G, and the court of the court below, the defendant was found to have committed a crime resulting in the Defendant’s injury of interfering with the execution of special duties, as stated in this part of the facts charged.

may be appointed by a person.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant argued in the lower court that this part of the appeal is the same as the grounds for appeal.

The court below rejected the above assertion in detail, with the title "the judgment on the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion", by stating in detail the defendant's assertion and its judgment.

Examining the above judgment by comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations by the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of interference with general traffic, thereby affecting the judgment.