The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The reasons why the first instance court adopted as evidence of the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle) and the statement F and G’s legal statement are different from the written statement at the investigation stage, and the contents between the two witnesses are also inconsistent with each other, and thus, the credibility is extremely low, and the F’s standing photographs are also unclear, thereby making it doubtful whether the Defendant was guilty of obstruction of the performance of official duties against the Defendant. However, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence.

2. The following facts acknowledged by the first instance court’s duly adopted and examined evidence: ① Each statement in F, G’s investigation agency, and court of first instance at the E police station that was called upon upon the report at the time of the instant case may be somewhat inconsistent and mutually consistent with each other; ② The main contents of the statement are as follows: (a) the police officer, who was called upon at the time, at the place, at the first instance court’s ruling; (b) the police officer, who was called upon upon the receipt of the report at the time, at the 112 report, was able to pay for taxi costs and return home; and (c) the police officer, who was engaged in patroling F and G using F’s arms, and assaulting G’s breast, etc. with their arms at the time of the instant report; and (d) the Defendant was unable to find any motive or motive to make a false statement in the statement by the police officer at the time of the instant police officer at the time of the replacement of the phone engineer at the time of the first instance police officer at the time of the report at the same time.