The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the facts, did not err by misapprehending the facts of the judgment below which found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case, on the grounds that the Defendant: (a) she mared a patrol force Ha with h’s knife knife h

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal.

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion as to this, and found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case, as in its reasoning.

2) In the crime of interference with the execution of official duties provided for in Article 136 of the Criminal Act, assault means an act of exercising force against a public official who performs official duties, and the assault includes directly or indirectly exercising force against a public official (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 70Do561, May 12, 1970; 81Do326, Mar. 24, 1981). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① according to the video taken at the scene of the scene, the defendant was placed in the direction of H, and the defendant was placed in the direction of H. ② The investigative agency and the court below consistently refused the defendant’s motion to move the vehicle to H beyond 5 on the face of the defendant, and the defendant stated 1 to the effect that “The defendant’s motion to move the vehicle to H beyond 1 on the part of the court below.”