The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (1) The Defendant did not commit assault or intimidation against police officers E, such as the entries in the facts charged.

(2) The Defendant’s act to oppose the police officer E’s performance of official duties is not a interference with the performance of official duties, since the police officer E took a bath against the Defendant, who is under the influence of alcohol.

B. At the time of mental disorder, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the argument of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, and in particular, according to the defendant's prosecutor's statement, it is acknowledged that the police officer, upon receiving a report from neighboring residents, was able to invalid home, and the defendant was able to take a bath, frighter, frighter, frighter, frighter, and frighter, E, which is dangerous object to frighter, and frighter to frighte. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of facts as to the facts charged of this case, and the police officer's frighting home to fright the defendant, which constitutes legitimate execution of duties to protect the lives of the people and to maintain the order of the people, and there is no error of law as alleged in the misapprehension of legal principles (the police officer's desire to frighte the defendant, on the other hand, by legitimately adopting the evidence as to mental and physical disorder at the time of the crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical argument cannot be accepted.

(c)

The judgment of the court below on the unfair argument of sentencing.