The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles1) The Defendant did not receive notification of the doctrine of disturbance from the police officer at the time of arrest in the act of committing an offense. Although the Defendant was arrested and completely sealed, the Defendant was given notice of the doctrine, which was given to Co-Defendant B, but it was not committed against the Defendant. Therefore, arresting the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the crime of obstruction of performance without notice of the doctrine, constitutes an unlawful performance of official duties, and the act of resisting it constitutes an act of obstructing performance of official duties. 2) Although there was a dispute with L while the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, it was true that the Defendant was an employee of the guard company, who was under the influence of alcohol, sent to the main place, and removed the Defendant and L, there was no conflict with L, and there was no attitude to take a bath and assault with L after the police officer was called

An act of a police officer's continuous restraint of a defendant who tried to move a place even after the passage of disturbance or disturbance with L within the main point of the defendant constitutes an excessive performance of duties by a police officer who failed to meet the requirements of Article 6 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and an act of defense is not an act of obstruction of performance of official duties

3) The Defendant’s act of spreading the arms of the police officer and pushing the police officer into a reflective movement against the Defendant under the influence of self-defense or under the influence of alcohol against the illegal performance of official duties by the police officer. As such, arresting the Defendant as a flagrant offender of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties was illegal and illegal, and the act of protesting against it does not constitute the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties. 4) Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination.