The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The one-year imprisonment sentenced by Defendant 1 at the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (as to the part of the lower judgment and interference with the performance of official duties on March 20, 2015) (as to the part of the lower judgment and the part of interference with the performance of official duties on March 20, 2015), the Defendant reported that the victim was scambling the above door, and caused the loss of the victim to be scam in the gap, and thus, the Defendant had the intention to inflict injury and interfere with the performance

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this portion is erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, such as the video CDs duly admitted and examined as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake, the Defendant was to leave the toilet room in order to open the door, and the victim was to open the door again.

The Defendant asked questions as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) was able to open the door again by cutting the body out of the partitions; (c) the Defendant was able to write the door in the hands, and the Defendant was able to write the door in the hands, and the victim was able to write the gate with the left hand, and the Defendant was able to put the gate in the gate; and (d) the Defendant was fluencing so.

“The victim’s son’s son was close with the door as it was, and the victim’s son was kid between the door and the mold, and the victim suffered injury as stated in the facts charged, is recognized.

As above, there was a division of conversations between the victim with whom the defendant had a door in the state of his knife and the victim who had a door, and the defendant would use the representative flag at the victim's request to use the defense.

The fact that the door is closed immediately after the unilateral answer is made and the door is closed.