The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The police officer D, who was dispatched to the instant site by mistake of fact, did not impose any sanctions against unauthorized intrusions, and punished the Defendant only for the Defendant’s abusive acts.

In the process of protesting against the defendant, the defendant's shoulder is sealed, which is permitted under social norms.

In addition, there is no fact that the defendant enters the right arms of police officer E.

Nevertheless, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of each of the charges of this case erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the lower court, and the police officer D sent to the site of this case and listened to the statement by separating the reporter and the Defendant from the scene of this case, that the Defendant was pushed down with the victim’s shoulder while taking a bath.

In light of the circumstances of the instant crime, the situation before and after the instant crime, and the degree of the exercise of force, the Defendant’s act does not seem to be permissible under social norms, and ② Police E, in the process of taking the Defendant’s arms from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the lower trial, was the Defendant’s arms.

In full view of the consistent statements made by E, “E was in the process of suppressing the Defendant, and the victim immediately thereafter confirmed his elbow part,” the instant visual images taken by the victim and the victim’s body photographs supporting the credibility of the victim’s statement, etc., the judgment of the court below is just, and there is a fact that the Defendant interfered with the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties, as stated in each of the facts charged in this case.