A. In relation to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties (1) by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, ① the defendant's act of keeping the body of a police officer or taking a hand by hand was only punished in the passive process of spreading the police officer's restraint, not actively assault or intimidation, and ② the defendant's act of taking the police officer's working clothes is nothing more than the intention of confirming the police officer's name, rather than the intention of committing the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

(2) In relation to the crime of injury at the time of the original trial, ① the victim L first fright to drink the defendant, and so it is not illegal since the defendant fright to resist, and ② even if the degree of assault by the defendant for domestic affairs was imposed, it is reasonable to not punish the defendant or reduce the punishment as a defense act committed in an uneasible situation at the time, and thus, it is reasonable to reduce the punishment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the ground of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant was sent to police officers upon receiving a report of collective violence.

(2) The court below's determination that the defendant committed the obstruction of performance of official duties is justified, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles, since the court below's determination that the defendant committed the obstruction of performance of official duties is justified, and there is no illegality of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles. The court below's determination that the defendant committed the obstruction of official duties is justified.

Therefore, the defendant's argument on this part is rejected.

(2) The Defendant alleged the same purport as that of the appeal even in the lower court, and the lower court on this point.