The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant, who is a taxi engineer, was at the time with C, but did not inflict any injury upon C at the time, and did not interfere with the police officer F, even though he did not inflict any injury or interfere with the performance of official duties, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts

Judgment

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: ① The victim C, a taxi engineer, made a consistent statement from an investigative agency to the court of the court below to the effect that “the defendant who wants to use a taxi without paying a taxi fee, was satisfing the defendant, and was injured by flabing the left hand part of the defendant,” ② The police officer F also made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to the court of the court below that “the defendant satisfing the defendant, who was sent to the scene for the police uniforms, was able to take a bath, flabing his own left hand, and flabbbbly, and flablyed by flabing it,” and the victim C, a taxi engineer, also made a statement to the effect that “the defendant was injured by flabing the defendant's body part of the charge, as stated in the investigation report (general) and the part of the victim C and F, as stated in the facts charged, and rejected the defendant's part of the charge.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no ground for appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition.