A. The Defendant of mistake of facts is a police officer F’s He dancing, but the Defendant did not know that F was a police officer at the time.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant can be found to have committed an assault by F in the manner of threatening F while recognizing that F is a police officer. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

① As to the circumstances in which the Defendant was arrested at an investigative agency, F stated that “I have the right to commit an indecent act preventing the arrest of a defective person B on the spot and to have the Defendant arrested at the same time without choice to interfere with the law enforcement.”

(30 pages of evidence) (2) In light of the circumstances, the Defendant reported the appearance of being arrested as a flagrant offender B, and assaulted F in the process of preventing it, it seems that F was sufficiently aware of the fact that F was a police officer at the time.

The Defendant made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that “F and E were in the custody of police officers called at the time.”

(3) In light of the circumstances in which the defendant has obtained the assistance of counsel in the original trial, it is difficult to conclude that the confession statement in the original trial has no discretion and credibility.

B. We examine the argument of unfair sentencing, and there is no change of circumstances that may consider the sentencing after the judgment of the court below, and considering the various sentencing conditions in the records and arguments of this case, the circumstances alleged by the defendant as grounds for appeal are considered.