The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts: (a) The Defendant 1 did not spit the trees of police officers G or spit them into the face of G; (b) the upper state claimed by the above G does not constitute an injury to the crime of injury as a surface naturally cured; and (c) the Defendant’s act of spiting with G was committed in the course of setting up against illegal arrest; and thus, it should be justified as self-defense or legitimate act. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability due to drinking.

C. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court on the assertion of mistake of facts: ① The victim G was sent from the investigative agency and the trial court to the investigation agency and the trial court to the Defendant’s 112 report, and was used as the reason for the report, but the Defendant stated consistently as to the fact that he was spiting and spiting the Defendant on his own spiting and face without any specific reason; ② The image of the photograph taken by the victim at the time conforms to the victim’s statement; ② the degree of the injury, considering the degree of the injury, the victim’s wife was deemed to have changed the victim’s physical condition due to the Defendant’s act and caused a disturbance in the function of life; ③ the Defendant’s wife constitutes the injury of the victim’s body; ③ the Defendant led to the confession of the facts charged in this case since the investigative agency and the trial court to the court of the lower court; and ③ the Defendant was denied the Defendant’s confession.