The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was not guilty of assaulting a police officer.

B. The crime of interference with the performance of official duties by misapprehending the legal principles is established only when the execution of official duties is legitimate. Since the police officer of this case did not notify the principle of disturbance at the time of arrest of the defendant, the execution of official duties is unlawful, the defendant abused the police officer.

Even if it does not constitute a crime of interference with the performance of official duties.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, was aware of the fact that the police officer collected a mobile phone from the police officer and taken the seat and face of the police officer, and that the police officer notified the Defendant of the gist of the offense, the reason for arrest, etc. while arresting the Defendant as a flagrant offender.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence examined, the lower court’s determination of facts is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

B. The Defendant interfered with the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties, which does not mean that the responsibility for the crime is somewhat weak in that the exercise of legitimate public authority is detrimental to the State’s function.

The Defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of suspension of execution due to interference with official duties.

In full view of the various circumstances, including the above circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that make it possible to change the sentencing of the lower court after the judgment, the sentencing of the lower court is not unfair.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.