A. It is true that the defendant's act when he entered the D, a police officer, was one time. However, D was not in the process of performing official duties, and even if he was in the process of performing official duties, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

(M) Fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles).

Even if the defendant's act is found guilty, the sentencing of the court below (one year of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.

(F) Determination; 2. Determination

A. In full view of the following additional circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant can be recognized as having interfered with legitimate execution of duties by assaulting D, who is a police officer, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the court below's decision, and the defendant's act does not constitute self-defense or legitimate act.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

1. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers provides for the protection of people's lives, bodies, and property as one of the duties of police officers, and Article 4(1)1 of the same Act provides that a police officer may take appropriate measures, such as protecting a police officer, if he/she finds a person who is likely to cause harm to himself/herself or another person's life, body, or property due to drinking and has considerable reasons to believe that emergency relief is necessary, when he/she finds such person under the influence of alcohol.

At the time of the case, the defendant was found in the police box in the state of drinking, and was assaulted by the taxi engineer, and reported the damage by himself, and the police officers including D make a statement about the damage to the defendant.