A. In relation to the crime of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, since citizens were unable to leave the toilet because of the fact that music was somewhat bigly dissatisfyed in viewing toilets, there is no obligation to leave the toilet, the Defendant is not a crime of refusing to leave the toilet. 2) In relation to the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, the Defendant only demanded a proper resolution of civil petitions, and there is no enemy who did not interfere with the performance of official duties of public officials belonging to C viewing or police assigned for special guard, so the Defendant does not constitute the crime of obstructing the performance

3) In relation to the crime of injury, the Defendant did not inflict an injury by asking the arms of the police officer, and even if having inflicted an injury, the Defendant did not constitute the crime of injury on the part of the police officer, since it was during the process of setting up against the unlawful act of performing official duties.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On the grounds delineated below, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of refusing to withdraw, obstructing the performance of official duties, and inflicting bodily injury.

1) As to the crime of non-compliance with the request for eviction, comprehensively taking account of the evidence in the judgment below, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was in the toilet in order to receive a return of ampample, and that the Defendant had the intention to comply with the request for eviction within the toilet (the police assigned to special guard against the Defendant was returned to ample, and the Defendant was returned to ample, which was returned to ample, and the Defendant was returned to ample, and the Defendant was returned to ample more than the prior.