The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles) did not contain any fact that the Defendant either sealed or drinking the police officer E or F by hand at the time of the instant case, and rather, the Defendant attempted to open a door to enter his house, and even though the police officer did not have been lawful in performing official duties, such as: (a) the Defendant forced the Defendant to enter the first floor; and (b) the police officer did not use violence against the Defendant; and (c) he did not use force against the Defendant; and (d) the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged; and (b) the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles

2. Comprehensively taking into account the consistent statements and photographs of police officers E, F’s investigative agencies, and the lower court’s trial court’s ruling, work log E, and 112 report processing slips, etc. ① On April 19, 2013, Silung Police Station D District E, Police Officer E, and Police Officers, around 03:45 on April 19, 2013, at C and 204, sent to the site upon receipt of a report that he was frighting a fright to walk with his fright and fright to walk with his fright to walk with his fright to walk with his fright to walk with his fright and fright to walk with his fright to walk with his fright, etc., the above police officers sent to the site. ② At the time of the instant case, the police officers were frighted with their uniforms, and ③ Nevertheless, the Defendant threatened the Flagrant offender as stated in the facts charged, and arrested them as the police officers.

According to the above facts, the police officers at the time of the instant case were lawfully engaged in the duty of 112 reporting and investigation, and the Defendant could recognize the fact that he interfered with his legitimate performance of official duties by means of assault and intimidation against the above police officers. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.