The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was only carried out the police patrol vehicle to go to the patrol team. At the patrol vehicle, D was trying to talk about the body of the Defendant while taking a bath against the Defendant. On this, the Defendant said D was merely able to look into the right shoulder of D, and D was able to immediately lock the Defendant, leading him to the earth.

Although the Defendant did not interfere with D’s performance of official duties, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the remainder of the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts is consistent with the purport that, as a police officer belonging to the C District Department, the Defendant: (a) during the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court below, stated that “the Defendant: (b) carried out patrols on the road by blocking the road; and (c) carried out D’s arms at the patrol level; and (d) carried out D’s arms.” The evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, including such D’s statement, can be found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant interfered with a public official’s legitimate performance of official duties by assaulting D’s police officers performing official duties.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not constitute a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties, even though the Defendant’s assertion contains the misapprehension of the legal principle, according to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, D merely stated that the Defendant was “Imson’s work” after carrying out patrols by the Defendant, and that the Defendant’s attacked D’s arms can be recognized, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected).

The defendant's decision on the argument of unfair sentencing does not oppose the denial of his criminal act.