A. There is no fact that the Defendant is aware of the face of a police officer as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

At the time, the Defendant: (a) was satisfing the body of the Defendant in a while playing in a string manner; (b) was satisfing one of them, and the Defendant was satisfing about the other party, and not only did the other party were satisfing about the police officer, but also did not intend to assault.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the various circumstances that the court below duly adopted and examined the allegation of mistake, the following facts are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the police officer F in charge of handling the 112 Report at the time stated consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, ② there is no special contradiction between the police officer F's statement in the investigative agency and the statement in the court of the court below, ② there is no reason to make a false statement as if the police officer was assaulted despite the fact that the police officer in charge of the official duties was assaulted, and there is no reason to make a false statement in the instant case. In light of the above, the police officer's statement was sufficient to credibility, ③ the defendant was found to drink alcohol at the time of the instant case and ③ was made twice while she was locked in the instant case and did not immediately make a false statement in the taxi.