The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) although the Defendant did not take a bath, such as the C police officer who was on duty in the C police station platform, and the situation management officer who is a police officer, such as the C police officer, “Choe” and “Choe,” or 35 minutes of his pedago, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding

The defendant's act is to respond to the act of restricting basic rights and physical freedom in relation to his/her filing of a civil petition, and is a legitimate act of self-defense or legitimate.

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the investigative agency and court of the first instance witness D, E, and F, video materials CD, etc.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely after comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is legitimate. However, on the third trial date of the court below, the prosecutor deleted the part of “Cexpule” among the facts charged in this case, and corrected the “up to about 35 minutes” as “up to 20 minutes,” respectively.

[Defendant's defense counsel asserts that it is difficult to recognize the credibility of testimony of the witness of the first instance trial in light of video materials CD, etc., but the statement in investigation agencies and court of the first instance witness D, E, and F of the first instance trial is the main part of the statement (the defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel is consistent with all the contents of the statement that he/she had engaged in an act of disturbance of revocation, such as continuing to take a bath to other sponsor and a situation management officer as shown in the facts charged, and its credibility is recognized, and it is difficult to reject the credibility of the statement solely on the grounds that the defendant did not record the video materials CD in which only a part of the defendant's act was taken

Considering the fact that the method of evaluating the credibility of a witness's statement made by the court of first instance has an essential difference between the court of first instance and the appellate court, and the purport of the substantial direct examination principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the contents of the judgment of first instance