The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

misunderstanding of the substance of the grounds for appeal, or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant did not have committed a breath or breath of the police officer F at the time of the instant case.

Such facts may also be found

Even if the police officer did not hold the resident registration certificate at the time of the instant case, the police officer did not lose it.

The Defendant’s performance of duties, such as plucking, plucking, etc., with his own wall without notice of the doctrine, is merely a passive defensive act to oppose it. Therefore, the police officer’s performance of duties is not a legitimate performance of duties, and the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense and thus illegal act should be avoided. However, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year of suspended execution of six months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to attend a course) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the following facts found by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is justifiable. Therefore, the Defendant’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is without merit.

At the time of the instant case, F, G and investigative agency and court of the lower court consistently consistent with “F, at the time of the instant case, discovered the Defendant to cross the front C without the permission of the Defendant, left the 1st floor toilet around the place of control to avoid regulating the Defendant. However, F and G, upon the Defendant’s disclosure of the Defendant’s name and position, asked the Defendant to present the Defendant’s identification card or resident registration number, and issued a penalty payment notice, and the Defendant was assaulted by the method that the Defendant f and G f f f g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g s.