The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as the Defendant, at the time and place of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties as indicated in the judgment of the court below (related to obstruction of performance of official duties), did not interfere with H’s legitimate execution of official duties by breaking H’s flaps, by breaking H’s flaps, etc., by breaking H’s blaps, etc., at his hand, the court below convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, in particular, the police officer H and G’s statements at the court of original instance, the defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant committed the obstruction of performance of official duties by committing an assault against H as stated in the facts constituting the obstruction of performance of official duties in the judgment of the court below, thereby obstructing the legitimate performance of duties of police officers

B. Although the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing seems to have been prepared by the defendant as North Korean defectors in preparing for a public official examination that makes it difficult while enjoying the basic living costs. However, considering these circumstances sufficiently, the court below appears to have determined the defendant's punishment by reducing the amount of fine in accordance with the summary order. Among each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties among the crimes of this case committed by the defendant is a crime that has impaired the State's function by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, and there is a need to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of official duties until the trial. The defendant denies the crime of obstruction of official duties of this case until the trial, and it is difficult to see that the defendant is divided into the motive and background leading up to each of the crimes of this case, circumstances before and after the crime of this case, the defendant'