The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) the police officer completed the crackdown on safety belts and the defendant took a bath when returning to a penalty payment notice; (b) there was no assault by the above police officer; (c) the police officer returned to the defendant’s desire and arrested the defendant as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties without notifying him of the doctrine; and (d) assault the defendant who did not comply with it.

Although the defendant set up against the illegal arrest of the police officer, the defendant's spawn belt or spawn, etc., it constitutes obstruction of performance of official duties.

or the defendant cannot be said to have had the intention of obstructing the performance of official duties, and even if so, it is not so.

Although the court below accepted each of the above police officers and F’s statements without credibility and convicted him of the facts charged of this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment with labor for four months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act to determine the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly erroneous or, in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of further examination of evidence by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, it is clearly unfair to maintain the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court, unless there are exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance court’s