A. In relation to the insulting part of fact-finding, the Defendant did not make the victim D’s abusive speech, and with respect to the part obstructing duties, the Defendant only made the same speech as the facts charged outside the restaurant as the victim K did not correct sanitary problems.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the details of the testimony of the witness D, H and I and the images of the victim K as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it can be recognized that the defendant interfered with his duties by force by means of force, such as making the victim D’s abusive language, leaving the victim K open to the public, going against the customer in Lestop operated by the victim K, and avoiding the disturbance.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

3. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.

Examining the conditions of sentencing and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records and changes in the instant case, even if considering all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair due to the lack of sentencing.

We do not accept the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.