A. Although the Defendant stated that the police officers dispatched at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was guilty of the instant facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant, at the time of the misapprehension of the legal principle, expressed that the police officers forced to attract themselves without any explanation to resist the unlawful exercise of public authority and to aid others, which constitutes self-defense or legitimate act, and thus does not constitute a crime. However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on self-defense or legitimate act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below can be sufficiently recognized that the police officers E and F sent by the defendant at the time and place specified in the facts charged in the instant case were the Defendant’s Madson. As such, “Yeman Madna, Madna,” the police officers would make soup to the Defendant, and the police officers would make soup to the Defendant.”

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, as soon as the said police officers called out and asked them whether he would be a son, started to engage in sobrying, and the said police officers, who identified the circumstances, expressed their desire to inform the Defendant of the location of sobrying.