The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not assault the E, a police officer, by committing two times the chest, and even if the Defendant had pushed the said E’s chest, it was minor that does not reach the degree of obstructing the public official’s performance of duties, and thus, the Defendant should be acquitted of the facts charged of this case. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and erroneous determination of facts that found the Defendant guilty.
2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's judgment, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged: ① E has stated that the Defendant was assaulted, such as consistently from the time of the complaint of this case to the court of the court below; ② The police officer, who was a police officer, sent to the scene of the crime of this case, stated to the effect that he was pushed the Defendant's chest by hand, and corresponds to the E's above statement, although I is a police officer of the same fee, it cannot deny the credibility of the above statement solely on such circumstances.
③ Prior to the instant crime, the Defendant asserted that the police officer called to the scene at the time of the instant crime was responding to the instant crime without any interest, such as using the remaining comments, etc., but, at the time, E, I, and C except the Defendant among those who were at the scene, stated that the Defendant was forced to take advantage of a large amount of interest for the Defendant at the time, and E, I, and C, which are the police officer working in the earth, are expected to handle the affairs related to the ordinary citizens. In full view of the Defendant’s age, occupation, etc., the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant used the instant crime, taking into account the circumstances where the instant crime was not handled regularly on the day or near time, taking into account the Defendant’s age, occupation, etc., and thus, the lower court did not err in matters of mistake of facts as pointed out by the Defendant.
In addition, the obstruction of performance of official duties is a duty.