The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant did not fit the victim police officers for drinking, and it was only when the police officers moved the defendant with the hand floor, and it was not legitimate that the police officers led the defendant at that time, and the police officers' act at the time constitutes an act that does not go against self-defense or social norms, and thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed from the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether the defendant was exposed to the face of the police officer by drinking, i.e., (1) D point E, which the defendant had ordered on credit, reported to the police officer because it would interfere with the defendant's business; (2) the police officer, who was called out of the defendant, made a statement that he was the victim's hand, would be at the same time he did not know that he was the victim's hand; (2) the police officer G, and H, who was called out of the police officer after receiving the report, stated that the defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender with the defendant's locking; and (3) the doctor'sJ stated that the defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender with the defendant's locking; (4) the police officer's other c) the police officer's view that the defendant's face was breater and the defendant's face on his left side and the defendant's face were sufficiently informed.

B. Article 6(1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers determines whether a defendant's act constitutes an act that does not go against self-defense or social norms.