A. The defendant asserts that the judgment of the court below that although the defendant did not take a bath against the victim F, the defendant abused the victim by openly taking a bath against the victim, the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant asserts that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even if the Defendant expressed the victim F’s desire to do so, it is merely passive resistance due to the indication of the police officer’s illegal and unfair performance of public duties.

C. The Defendant asserts that the lower court’s punishment (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant: (a) on May 22, 2014, 2014, on the part of the facts charged: (b) 1, the Defendant: (a) on the 22th day of May 22, 2014, boarded C cab driven by B; (c) went to the marina market where the taxi is the destination; and (d) the taxi engineer B took a bath to B; and (c) he was prevented from taking it; and (d) upon receiving a report from D, he was requested by F, etc. of the process of carrying out voluntary movement, such as taking a trial expenses; and (e) moved to the E box with the E box where he was called for a police box belonging to the Gyeongnamnamnam-si E police station box of the Masan-si, the Defendant was found guilty of the Defendant, who was the victim during the investigation on the said grounds, including the foregoing B, D, and other East police officers, who were found the victim of the crime, such as suckinging, and she was found guilty of the victim.

3. The following circumstances, i.e., the victim, under investigation by the police, voluntarily operated in the police box, after being investigated by the police.