The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant did not assault police officers E, and even if so, this is an act to escape from the illegal or unfair infringement of E which excessively restrains the defendant, and thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties cannot be established. Thus, the judgment of the court below convicts the defendant, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the two-year suspension of execution in six months of imprisonment and the 80-hour community service order, and the 40-hour lecture order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined as to the assertion of mistake of facts: ① after the defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender in the crime of assault and was transferred to the D District, and the defendant went back to the D District to the police officer E, despite the defendant's demand that he would return to the job, and the defendant continued to interfere with the defendant's desire to go to the E. In the process of spreading it, it seems that the defendant and E were replaced by the defendant during the process, and that E was likely to assault the defendant's side and face; ② If the police officer deems that the criminal act is about to be committed before the police officer, the police officer may issue a warning to the person concerned to prevent the act; ② if it is deemed that the act is likely to inflict harm on human life and body, or cause serious damage to property, the police officer may stop such act (Article 6(1) of the Violence Act).