The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the substance of the grounds for appeal or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, nor did the Defendant use violence or intimidation against G who is a police officer.

Even if the defendant committed violence against a police officer, illegality is excluded because he or she resisted or resisted against illegal performance of official duties and constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate social rules or a legitimate defense.

G, the police officer of G, did not notify the accused of the principle of Madernity, such as the summary of the offense.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the punishment amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine reveals the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court. The lower court, based on the following: (a) the CCTV installed in the E District on the day of the instant case ( August 23, 2015); (b) the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, talked with G not more than 00:54:15, and was informed of the disturbance, such as 0:54:15, while taking care of the Defendant, “out-of-the-spot”; (c) 00:54:35, around 0:39: (d) if the Defendant continued to resist with G to the effect that “at around 00:5:5:0,503, while the Defendant’s desire to 5:509, while she will repeatedly take care of the Defendant, he/she may repeatedly arrest him/her, and (d) if the Defendant will continue to be out of G:6:50, 506, and 56:5:56:5, if he/she will be out of G.

The G, at around 00:57:13, is the Defendant, on the face of a dispute, with the desire of this son, and without the drinking line.