공무집행방해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and omission of judgment) did not assault a police officer at the time of appeal, and the arrest of a flagrant offender against the defendant was made without notifying the police officer properly. Thus, the law is inconsistent.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
In addition, the court below erred by omitting judgment as to the defendant's assertion that the defendant does not constitute violence of obstruction of official duty even if the defendant's assault is recognized.
2. The Defendant argued to the same effect in the lower court as to the remainder of the above argument except for the omission of judgment, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in the part of the “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” as of the 3th to 7th of the lower judgment. In so doing, the Defendant
In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is sufficiently acceptable, and there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, misunderstanding of legal principles, or omission of judgment, or contrary to the principle of presumption of innocence.
It is difficult to see it.
A. (i) The Defendant did not assault the Defendant’s victim police officer; however, even according to the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant does not accurately memory the situation at the time of being drunk (Evidence No. 53-54, 99, 116, 164-165, etc. of evidence record), and it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s above assertion.
See Doshe made a statement to the effect that the Defendant recognized all the charges of this case at the time of the binding review (No. 116 pages of evidence records), and at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, memory is not well known, but is the victimized police officer.