The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as indicated in the instant facts charged, did not have had a very rough and disorderly speech or behavior conducted at the Jeju Police Station B District, as indicated in the instant facts charged, by doing so.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and examined evidence, namely, ① the Defendant stated that he was aware of the facts charged at the first trial date of the lower court; ② the police officer F, while under the influence of alcohol on December 17, 2016, expressed her desire to find the Defendant on the B earth and her he/she was seated on the B earth while drinking around 04:21, and tried to assault other police officers.

In full view of the facts stated in the Defendant’s statement, ③ CCTV video CDs, the Defendant, as recorded in the instant facts charged, has taken a scam or scamously and scamous behavior by a very rough speech and behavior at a police station B located in the Jeju Western Police Station, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant’s scam and scam to a police officer F; and (b) the Defendant took a scam to another police officer, such as talking with him; and

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the Defendant.

B. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, where there exists a unique area of the first instance trial as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).