The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. Fact-misunderstanding ① In relation to the fact that there was injury that interfered with the performance of special official duties (2016 Gohap 762), the Defendant, upon receiving a report from a restaurant employee, was bound by the police officers dispatched to the restaurant, and did not possess a wooden machine at the time, it was impossible for the Defendant to take the police officers into the wooden machine as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, and ② in relation to the obstruction of duties (2017 Gohap 50, 2017 Gohap), he did not sell the cafeteria employee to the Defendant.

Although there were several vagabonds, it did not interfere with the business of the victim by force while taking a bath as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below, and ③ in relation to the point of special injury (2017 Gohap 180), when exercising violence on the part of the victim and the victim, such as the faceing of the defendant first on the face of the victim and the Si guard, it was only when the defendant had sold the victim with the stick on the face of the defendant at the defense level, and there was no injury to the head of the defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined as to the assertion of mistake of fact: (a) with the victim and the victim at the time of the instant case regarding the fact that the victim was injured by obstructing the performance of special duties

G With respect to the circumstances on the day of the instant case, each statement made by the investigative agency and the court of the court below may be made specifically and consistent and reliablely, and the CCTV images of the F police box are fully consistent with the said statements, and ② With respect to interference with business, the victim interfered with the restaurant business by consistently finding in the restaurant at the time of the instant case in the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court below, which interfered with the Defendant’s activities that interfered with the victim’s humiliation

There is no reason to suspect the credibility of the above statement, and ③ the victim's photograph and the victim's treatment with respect to the point of special injury.