A. The defendant did not know that he was under flight by misunderstanding of facts D, and the police officers were wearing the clothes, and he did not recognize that D was arrested by the police officers because he did not present his identification card. Thus, the defendant did not have the intention to escape or interfere with the performance of official duties.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence, such as the written statement of the police of the victim police officer, the video image of the damaged police officer, etc., as to the assertion of mistake of facts, D, who is a person to be arrested, may flee by assaulting the police officer, etc. while knowing the fact that the defendant tried to arrest D, and recognize the fact that the police officer interfered with the performance of duties of the police officer. Thus,

B. The Defendant appears to have committed a contingent crime under the influence of alcohol.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant, by exercising assault, interfered with the execution of duties in connection with the arrest of a legitimate police officer and attempted to flee an offender, and that there is considerable evidence to be punished several times due to obstruction of performance of official duties, fraud, special larceny, etc., the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, force, environment, circumstances, method of crime and circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

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