A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not assault the police officer, and rather suffered bodily injury in need of four weeks of medical treatment by assaulting the police officer.

B. At the time of misunderstanding legal principles, police officers did not meet the requirements for arrest of flagrant offenders, but intended to arrest the defendant as flagrant offenders, and the defendant only asserted this. Thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, which is premised on legitimate performance of duties, cannot be established.

C. The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Considering the following, comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of assaulting police officers as stated in the judgment of the court below.

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

1) When the Defendant’s wife, who had observed the situation at the time, was examined by the police, he saw the police officer who was dispatched by the Defendant to be “at the time”, “finite,” “finite,” “finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite,” and left the toilet, and left the face of the police officer. Accordingly, the police officer was finite finite find with the Defendant’s desire to enter as the Defendant’s body.