The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not have expressed a bath to F and E in the light of the police officer called out after receiving 112 report, and did not assault E’s clothes.

Dor, however, F and E have entered 112 reports, and tried to pluck, pluck, lock, and arrest the defendant's strict hand, and only passive resistance.

The arrest act of F and E constitutes an unlawful performance of duties against the defendant, and the defendant's passive resistance against E does not constitute an obstruction of performance of official duties.

Applicant Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The court below rejected the above assertion in detail under the title "the judgment on the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion", which is "the judgment on the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion" in the judgment of the court below, by asserting that the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is identical to the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. We affirm the judgment of the court below by comparing the evidence

⑵ 이에 더하여 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들 및 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사실 또는 사정, 즉 ① 수사기관 및 원심에서 ‘피고인이 E의 옷을 잡아 흔든 후 순찰차의 주유구를 발로 찼는지 아니면 순찰차의 주유구를 발로 찬 후 E의 옷을 잡아 흔들었는지’와 ‘이 사건 이후 순찰차를 수리하였는지’에 관한 E의 진술이 번복된 바 있으나, ‘피고인이 E의 옷을 잡아 흔들었다는 점’ 및 ‘피고인이 순찰차의 주유구를 발로 찼다는 점’에 대한 E의 진술은 일관성이 있는 점, ②...