The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not sprink tobacco smoke on the face of the police officer F as stated in the facts of crime, and even if such fact is acknowledged, it cannot be viewed as an exercise of tangible force constituting a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties. In the process of the Defendant’s arrest, the police officer F performed a breath of the police officer F with a view to making it easy for the Defendant to sprinkbling with the breath and with the breath of drinking bals by drinking bals, but this constitutes a legitimate act as a defense against the unlawful arrest by the police officer, as a legitimate act.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (a) police officers G belonging to the Ulsan Southern Police Station, and F, upon receiving a report that the Defendant and I did not pay the drinking value on February 25, 2015; (b) the Defendant refused to pay the drinking value while continuing a disturbance; and (c) the above G calls to the effect that “B refuses to pay the drinking value; (d) the Defendant notifies the Defendant of the right to refuse to make statements and the right to appoint counsel; (e) the Defendant arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the crime of fraud and insult; and (e) tried to find the Defendant by causing the Defendant to wear the shoulder and part of the Defendant’s shoulder while arresting the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the crime of fraud and insult (as alleged by the Defendant, it is difficult to recognize the payment of the drinking water as a lawful act of obstruction of performance of official duties by adding the above Defendant’s face to the appearance of the Defendant.