The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the absence of the police officer’s assault and verbal abuse, the Defendant’s mistake of facts would have failed to commit the instant crime, and thus, the Defendant was not justified in performing police officer E’s official duties.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and thereby committed an unlawful act affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, E was called to the site after receiving a report that there is a trial expense between the defendant and the taxi engineer, E was called to the site by obtaining the defendant and the taxi engineer, and started the taxi and directed the defendant to return home, and the defendant was under the influence of this, the defendant under the influence of this act was under the police station, was under the investigation, was under the police station, was led to the defendant's hand, and the defendant was sent to the patrol vehicle, and the defendant was not under the patrol vehicle, and the fact that the defendant was carrying the defendant's hand, and the defendant was under the patrol vehicle. In light of such a series of circumstances, E was justified in the performance of official duties.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, there are circumstances that may be considered in the circumstances of the crime, such as: (a) the Defendant did not have any particular criminal records other than the criminal records prior to a fine; (b) the Defendant did not hear the horses of the Defendant and sent the taxi engineer back to the police station as he did not want to board the patrol vehicle in order to resist from the police station; (c) the Defendant did not directly take the police officer; (d) the Defendant’s wrong part is against the motive for the crime of this case; (c) the means and method of the crime; (d) the Defendant’s motive for the crime of this case; (e) the Defendant’s age and experience after the crime; and (e) the record and arguments