The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant's act is a justifiable act as a justifiable provision, and the degree of obstruction of business is not possible. ② In relation to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, the defendant did not want to spit tobacco and spits with the police officer, and the violence of the defendant did not constitute the degree of obstruction of performance of official duties. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding of facts

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

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and ① the Defendant’s act of plucking, plucking or plucking up the employees’ fingers in the instant burial for about 20 minutes cannot be viewed as a legitimate act by force, which interferes with the performance of duties in the instant burial. ② In relation to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, according to the evidence, the Defendant’s act of spiting tobacco and spiting with the police officer intentionally, and furthermore, the Defendant’s assault stated in the facts charged constitutes a sufficient degree to interfere with the performance of official duties. Accordingly, all the facts charged in the instant case are recognized, and the Defendant

B. In full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated offense; (b) the victims and the Defendant did not reach an agreement; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; (b) the background and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable even if considering the circumstances of the Defendant’s assertion in light of the circumstances of the Defendant

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal by the defendant is groundless, and thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.