A. The defendant asserts that the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles as follows.

1) Inasmuch as the Defendant, within his/her own car, took a bath by voice that only police officers can hear, and did not have any other person in the surrounding area, there is no “public performance”. 2) There was no assault by police officers on the part of obstruction of performance of official duties.

There is violence.

Even if a police officer’s arrest of an offender in the act of committing an offense of insult is an unlawful performance of official duties without being notified of the principle as above 1) and as such, it does not constitute an obstruction of performance of official duties. However, the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s determination of the insult portion or by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the Defendant’s patent insult may be acknowledged as indicated in the facts charged. ① Police Officers consistently make a statement from the investigation agency to the lower court that “the Defendant was issued with a penalty boiler, and “the Defendant was influorily fluored, well-known,” and “the Defendant was influorily fluored.” ② Police Officers E and F made different statements on the location of each party at the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s attitude of assault, etc. (in the original trial court, E was on the driving side of the Defendant’s car, and F slope was on the front side of the Defendant’s car, and F slope was assaulted by the Defendant’s body,” and the “F assistant was physically sealed by the Defendant’s body and was immediately sealed by the Defendant’s body.”

I think that there is a change.

However, police officers E also.