A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is the fact that the police officer and the franchis were involved in the process of resisting that the police officer received a penalty payment notification and received a penalty payment notification, but there is no physical violence against the police officer.

Rather, police officers were unable to stand the defendant at the police station on the grounds that they resist the defendant, and forced police officers to make false statements during the investigation process.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, upon receiving a report on the Defendant’s act of disturbance of drinking alcohol at the time and place indicated in the lower judgment, was issued by the police officer E to receive a penalty payment notification from the Defendant, and went off on the road, and subsequently, committed assault, such as assaulting E in order to prevent the occurrence of an accident by taking the Defendant’s desire to put the Defendant up, and pushing the E in order to prevent the accident. During being taken in the police station and being investigated, the Defendant’s use of force is sufficient for the crime of interference with the performance of official duties.

B. The evidence of the Defendant was collected by the investigation process under a strong seizure or unlawful procedure

Since there is no data to see that there is no evidence, the defendant's mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Determination 1 on the unjust assertion of sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is based on statutory penalty, and the determination of discretion is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.

However, under the trial-oriented principle and directism taken by our criminal litigation law.