A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles not only did there were no intention of causing property damage or assault by police officers. At the time, police officers did not rescue the defendant at the scene, but did not have legitimate execution of duties, such as making the defendant a crime of causing property damage and hearing statements. Thus, the defendant's act against this does not constitute the crime of obstructing performance of official duties.

B. At the time, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol so as to have weak capacity to discern things or make decisions.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below and the court below, it can be recognized that the defendant had observed the above violence situation, such as the fact that the defendant, while attending the scene by drinking alcohol and drinking alcohol, was sent to the site and the police officer F sent his identity to the site and received a statement for a considerable period of time, the defendant was found to have observed the above violence situation. According to the above facts, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the intention of causing property damage and the intention of assault against the police officer who conducts legitimate public duties for criminal investigation and taking protective measures against the principal. Thus, the defendant's misconception of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. According to the records of mental and physical disability, although it may be recognized that the defendant committed the crime of this case under drinking, considering the circumstances leading up to the crime, the defendant's act before and after the crime of this case, etc., it seems that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, and therefore, the defendant'

C. Unreasonable sentencing.