A. In relation to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not interfere with the main operation by avoiding disturbance from the main point of the victim C, etc.

Even if such fact is true, this act constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act committed in the course of suppressing a man who had been raped by the defendant.

With regard to the obstruction of the performance of official duties against police officers F, the defendant has no memory at the time of the police officer F's cream, and even if such fact is true, it constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act as an act done without any situation where the defendant was clearly informed of rape.

With regard to the obstruction of the performance of official duties of police officers H, although the defendant was able to walk the bridge of police officers H once, there is no fact that the defendant used more violence.

Since the defendant did not have the intention of escape at the time, the use of H's wall to suppress the defendant does not constitute legitimate execution of official duties, the defendant's act does not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties.

Even if so, this constitutes self-defense or legitimate act in a situation where it is doubtful that the defendant was raped.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case for the reasons stated in its holding, and there is a legal principle as to the mistake of facts, self-defense, or legitimate act