A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant merely attempted to resist the police officer and did not intend to pose a threat, and did not have an intention to obstruct the performance of official duties. Automobiles used by the Defendant do not constitute dangerous objects.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, community service, 120 hours of education, 40 hours of attendance order) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court. The defendant was prohibited from making an illegal left-hand turn from the police officer C before the crime of this case, and there was a complaint. At the time, the defendant was driving a vehicle on the road due to a large number of vehicles going to work at work hours so that it is difficult for the defendant to drive the vehicle at a rapid speed so that it would be difficult for the police officer to walk on the road. The defendant was faced with the police officer C by driving the vehicle at a rapid speed, the police officer C and G sent to the police officer by reporting the vehicle of the defendant driving the vehicle at a rapid speed, and F, who was witness, appears to have been threatening the police officer by driving the vehicle at a speed, and therefore, the defendant was believed to have obstructed the police officer by interfering with the police officer's desire after driving the vehicle on the side, and considering the above circumstances, the defendant's attitude to change the police officer's duty is sufficiently consistent with the defendant's attitude.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In the case of Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the term “hazardous goods” is not a deadly weapon.