The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the injury caused by interference with the execution of special official duties among the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as follows.

1) Police Officers E is unreasonable to keep the Defendant, who was driving on the Otoba, in order to restrain the Defendant from driving on the Otoba, and is going out from the direction of Otoba. This constitutes an unlawful performance of duties by a police officer beyond the necessary minimum scope under the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers.

2) The Defendant merely thought that he would proceed with damage E and did not have any desire to shock, and the Defendant was unable to expect that he had no intention to shock, and the Defendant did not have an intention to interfere with the execution of official duties or to inflict an injury on the Defendant, as he was protruding out with the Defendant’s ozone part.

3) The injury suffered by E is merely a hole in the part of the arms and does not constitute “injury” under the Criminal Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a year and six months of imprisonment, a fine of KRW 300,000, etc.) is unreasonable as it is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. This part of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not differ from the assertion at the lower court. As to this, the lower court, in its reasoning, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine that: (a) the E, which discovered the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the adopted evidence in the part of the “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion (the crime of causing injury or injury to the execution of special official duties)”; (b) attempted to stop the Defendant on the part of the Defendant who was driving Oral Ba with a considerable distance of time from the E, or attempted to stop on the part of Oral Ba; and (c) did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine that the Defendant, while failing to comply therewith, did not recognize the fact that he could compromise the E’s body if he proceeds from the Oral Ba as is.

It is judged that the wife suffered by E does not interfere with daily life or it is extremely minor to cure nature within a short time.