The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, instead of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, was able to take a bath at a mixed end, rather than toward a police officer.

Even if the defendant expressed a desire to a police officer, the defendant's act constitutes legitimate act that does not constitute legitimate self-defense or violate social rules because it was intended to resist the illegal arrest by the police officer.

Nevertheless, the court below's conviction of the defendant is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts or circumstances are acknowledged. ① A witness I, H, and G agree with the witness I, H, and he reported to the police at the time when he did not leave his house despite his employee's demand to leave and did not pay his alcohol value. At the time I and H asked the Defendant to leave the house, the Defendant testified that he had expressed a desire to take a police officer inside the drinking house. The witness G testified that the Defendant continued to take a police officer outside the drinking house. ② At the time of the judgment of the lower court, L was on the second floor of the drinking house as stated in the facts constituting the crime, “I want to take self-defense and how I want to do so,” and that the Defendant expressed his desire to take a police officer or expressed his desire to take a part of the aforementioned evidence. In full view of the circumstances stated in the lower court's decision, the witness G testified testified or the following facts are sufficiently acknowledged.

(1) above.