A. The Defendant, even though there was no enemy who committed an act of obstruction of the performance of official duties, said that the police officer had committed an act of obstruction of the performance of official duties against the Defendant. As such, the Defendant did not have a criminal intent to insult the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of insult among the facts charged, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant took a bath in the passive resistance of police officers against illegal arrest of flagrant offenders, and thus, the Defendant is dismissed as constituting a justifiable act.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the offense of insult. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the lawful act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

C. The lower court’s imprisonment with prison labor of two million won, which was sentenced to the Defendant, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the records on the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant was unable to avoid disturbance by pointing out the problem of driving a taxi by a disabled person C, and the police officer D, who called, proposed the defendant to pay a taxi fee, and explained the fact that the disabled person may drive a taxi, etc. The defendant took a bath to D, such as "the same bit of bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a

Even if D mentioned the defendant in relation to obstruction of performance of official duties, as claimed by the defendant, many criminal offenders observe D.