A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to interference with the performance of official duties, the Defendant did not account for the face of the police officer F, and the bridge going beyond the front seat of the patrol police officer, and only contacted the Defendant’s face.

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

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, since the Defendant’s face was admitted during the patrol team.

1) Police Officers F, in an investigative agency, refused to board the police officer who was forced to sit on the back of the patrol car, and the police officer’s “F,” who was on the side of the patrol car, was forced to live together.

On the left side of the motor vehicle due to a sloping on the left side.

In light of the F’s photograph, which appears to have been taken immediately after the occurrence of the instant case, F made a statement to the same effect as the investigative agency’s statement in the court below’s ruling that “The investigation record 20 pages. 2)” A police officer G who arrested the Defendant, along with F, appears to have had a considerable physical impact on F’s nose (the investigation record 37 pages. 4), also testified that “F faces a bad voice in the process of carrying the Defendant on board F’s vehicle,” and that F faces a face in line with F’s statement and part of F’s face (the trial record 51 pages 51 page 5).” The police officer asserted that the Defendant’s face would have come beyond the center of the F’s face, and that it was consistent with F’s statement and part of F’s face (the trial record 51 pages 5).

However, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant sits on one bridge with the rear seat of the patrol vehicle.