A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts, although the Defendant did not support the F’s backendor of the police officer, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that recognized the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, the lower court did not take protective measures against the Defendant at the time of the instant case, and the police officer arrested the Defendant on the ground of the Defendant’s illegal act. Even if the Defendant committed assault against F, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of obstruction of official duties, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by recognizing the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., ① the police officer F, from the investigation agency to the court of the lower court, consistently expressed the following circumstances: (a) after receiving a report from the police agency to the court of the lower court, he was sent to the scene that “I am in front of D that I am out of the past, and am out of the scene, I am out of the Defendant’s view that “I am in front, I am out of the past, I am out of the scene, and I am out of the scene; (b) the Defendant am in a consistent and concrete manner at the time of receiving injury and assault, and (c) the Defendant tried to force a police officer to go to the Defendant because I am in front of the police officer at the time of arrest. However, the Defendant’s witness at the time of arrest.