A. The Defendant did not assault the police officer F as stated in the facts charged.

B. Even if the Defendant committed assault against F, this would have occurred in the course of resistance by police officers to escape the arrest of the Defendant by forcing the Defendant.

Therefore, the illegality of the defendant's act constitutes self-defense to escape from the current illegal infringement due to illegal arrest.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine whether the defendant assaulted F of police officer F.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, F, H, and G’s specific and consistent statements and circumstances at the time of committing the crime in the investigation agency and the court below’s court, F would sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant committed assault against F’s chest by drinking, as F would have avoided the Defendant’s assault against G.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Next, we examine whether the defendant's act constitutes self-defense.

As seen earlier, F used the Defendant’s assault against G in the course of suppressing the Defendant’s assault. As such, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise (in the course of resistance to escape from illegal arrest, assaulted the police officer in the course of resistance) is without merit without further review.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.