2. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the court below after considering the evidence duly admitted and examined, co-defendants in the court below's decision, as shown in the judgment of the court below, assault police officers, and the defendant jointly with co-defendants in the above co-defendants, "whether or not the police officer who is performing public duties would be subject to murder, robbery, or not sofinite." The defendant brut the trial expenses, and interfere with the police officer's performance of public duties by exposing his hand, protruding the door, thereby interfering with the victim's performance of public duties, and at the same time interfering with the victim's injury requiring two weeks' medical treatment. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

① The police officer, who was the victim, stated that the Defendant, from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, took the same words as the facts charged, obstructed the progress of crackdown by putting his hand on his body and blocking the progress of crackdown.

② The lower court acknowledged all the facts charged in the instant case.

(3) Even if the CCTV images submitted are examined, it is consistent with the statement of the victim because the victim is in a long state where the victim continues to drive away from the victim, and as the victim intends to drive away from the female suspected of Domination, together with co-defendants of the original instance, a knife with the victim in a way that prevents him from extending to the door.

④ In the recording files submitted, the Defendant’s defect that “the victim frighted the police officer,” and “the Defendant knew of this situation, she is not a frighter, frighter, and frighter in the atmosphere,” and “I am to know of this situation, frighter in the atmosphere,” and “I am to know of this situation. I am now, I am to come. I am to know of this situation. I am on the aftermason’s murder case, and I amson’s robbery.”