A. According to each statement made by police officers F and H at the court of original instance, which was called at the time of the instant case, the above police officers informed the Defendant of the U.S. doctrine in the process of arresting the Defendant as a current offender, and even if it can be recognized that the Defendant inflicted an injury upon the face of F due to the Defendant’s elbow, the lower court did not inform the police officers of the U.S. doctrine by making a statement in the court of original instance by the Defendant’s wife D’s statement in the lower court, and the Defendant inflicted an injury on F.

It is difficult to recognize, and even if so, the injury was inflicted.

Even if this constitutes a legitimate defense, this part of the facts charged was acquitted.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (guilty portion) is unreasonable as it is too uneasible to the extent that it is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. On August 20, 2015, around 22:35, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, upon receiving domestic violence reports from the Defendant’s home room located in C Apartment-si, 103 602, the Defendant sent to the Defendant’s spouse, and (b) the Defendant’s spouse, D et al., sought statements from the Defendant, etc.; and (c) the police officers belonging to the same district police station Ear-gu, Y, where he was trying to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender who interfered with the performance of official duties; and (d) once the victim’s face was 14 days, he / she sawd the victim’s face to be treated for approximately 14 days.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning arrest of flagrant offenders and at the same time injured the victim.

2) The lower court’s judgment: (a) consistently in an investigative agency and a court of the lower court, intended to arrest the Defendant from the Defendant by notifying the Defendant of the bluter doctrine; and (b) in the process, he/she was faced with the face of the blubow.

Recognizing the facts stated by the court below, the court below is legitimate.