The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is merely an act of committing assaulting obstruction of the performance of official duties, such as taking the hand of a police officer or making a light contact with a police officer who called out at the time of the Defendant’s oral statement in the course of protesting the Defendant’s horses to the police officer who was called out at the Defendant’s expense.

The execution of duties by the police officer is legitimate because the police officer forced the defendant who does not get out of the taxi by exercising physical power.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, the court below held that the defendant was assaulted by the police officer while taking protective measures against the defendant, considering that the police officer was under the influence of alcohol, but at the time, the defendant was not in need of protective measures under the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and the act of the police officer in mobilization does not constitute protective measures, and is also illegal.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute a crime of obstruction of performance.

The defendant's act is merely a minor physical contact to resist the police officer's action in a brupt manner. The infringement of legal interests by the police officer in mobilization is not significant. The defendant's act was conducted in a situation where the defendant is left on the road at night while under the influence of alcohol. Thus, it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below's explanation on "judgment on the defendant's assertion" part 2-A of the "judgment on the defendant's assertion" can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant used the force corresponding to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties against the dispatched police officers

In addition, the police officer in mobilization is on the back seat of the taxi.