A. Although the defendant was a victim by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the damaged police officer conducted a biased investigation, such as treating the defendant as a victim. Accordingly, the defendant's defect, forced the defendant to leave the door, and forced the damaged police officer to do the same act as written in the facts charged. Thus, the defendant's act resisted against the police officer's illegal act and constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (10 months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the following circumstances, namely, ① Police Officers came out from E “N”.

Also, there have been a lot of problems.

“The Defendant, who arrived at N upon receiving a report and asked E for the background of the report, was expressed a desire to the police officer. ② Even though the police officer sent a warning to the Defendant, the Defendant could not proceed with the investigation by committing an act, such as smugglinging the police officer’s body, etc., the Defendant would be relieved of her match.

In light of the circumstances and circumstances at the time of the instant crime, including the following: “A police officer’s performance of official duties by a victimized police officer is lawful and cannot be said to be a legitimate defense or legitimate act by the Defendant.”

Therefore, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the obstruction of the performance of official duties is justified, and it is so argued by the defendant.