A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not display the police officer a drink, but merely caused the car by the port and the sign of decentralization, and there is only a fact that the police officer unfairly gets the Defendant’s arms to escape from it.

B. Since the exercise of public authority by a police officer by misapprehending the legal doctrine is unfair, the act of brucking a police officer to raise his/her loss or her roots a police officer constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one month of imprisonment and a fine of three hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant is recognized as having obstructed the legitimate duties of police officers as stated in the judgment below.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s act of assault against the police officer cannot be deemed as self-defense or legitimate act in light of the facts acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence in determining the defense or legitimate act.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.