The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendant did not assault a police officer as stated in the facts charged, and it is merely an exercise of minor tangible power to the extent that he/she spreads the police officer who prevented the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 6 million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant could recognize that the defendant abused three police officers as stated in the facts charged to interfere with the legitimate execution of official duties concerning the 112 reported case, and in light of the course and process of the assault, the force and method thereof, etc., the defendant did not have an intention to interfere with the performance of official duties.

(2) No party may be deemed to constitute a justifiable act.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1. The victim police officers G, H, and I called to the scene after receiving 112 reports on the assault case that occurred between Defendant P and E on the date of the occurrence of the case, and sought statements from the site, and re-tightly pushed off the Defendant G. After which the Defendant: (a) was tightly h in the state of interest; and (b) obstructed E from leaving the door; (c) subsequently, the Defendant was forced to keep the door; (d) again, the Defendant tried to keep the door at the seat of the patrol; (d) the Defendant was tightly warneded with G, H, and I to stop; (e) the Defendant was given verbal warning; but (e) the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender of the obstruction of performance of official duties, after being informed of the doctrine of king, etc., intending to keep the I closely and again undergo the patrol; and (e) the process and circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the case at the time of the occurrence of the instant case were consistent with the purport of the facts charged.