The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, within the instant car page, was only fleeped by the Defendant’s hands first in the Defendant’s shoulder at the Defendant’s shoulder, and did not have the F’s chest on several occasions, and the event of such degree does not constitute assault in the crime of interference with the performance of official duties.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant committed an assault against the police officer’s buck or face while resisting the police officer’s illegal arrest in the act of committing an act of committing an offense, which constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

【The instant public prosecution was instituted in an unspecified state of the facts charged, and accordingly, the Defendant’s defense was infringed.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, it can be acknowledged that the defendant took a bath to F beyond the degree of spreading the hands of police officer F who recommended the defendant to leave the Kaf toilet of this case, and that F notified F that his act of not taking a police officer called out constitutes a crime of interference with the performance of official duties, and the exercise of such degree of force constitutes violence in the crime of interference with the performance of official duties. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Although the lower court alleged that the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation on the ground that the Defendant’s act constituted a “judgment on the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion” as stated in the part regarding “judgment on the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion.”

As a result of the review of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court and the appellate court, the original judgment is to the same effect.