The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the defendant visited the police station to report the refusal to take passengers in the taxi, the police officer took the above report on the ground of the defendant's taking-over situation. The defendant's act of resisting such improper measures does not constitute the crime of disturbance to revoke the order at the government office prescribed by the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, but the court below decided the defendant's act as the crime of violation.

In addition, the arrest of the defendant against the defendant was without the risk of destruction of evidence or escape at the time of arrest, and the defendant was not informed at all of the summary of the suspected crime, the reason for arrest, and the right to appoint a counsel at the time of arrest, and thus illegal arrest was made. In the process of protesting, it was not illegal for the defendant to take a bath against the police officer. However, the court below considered that the due process of the arrest was complied with, and decided that the defendant'

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was found to have avoided disturbance at the Yeongdeungpo Police Station while under the influence of alcohol, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below which decided as the crime of disturbance in the state of revocation at the government office under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, G-si on July 10, 2014: (i) G-si on the part of the defendant was entering the Yeongdeungpo-gu Police Station; (ii) the above police station stated that the police officer, who served in the door of the police station, only did the defendant leave the taxi with his/her destination and did not leave the taxi without his/her destination; (iii) the police officer attempted to listen to the defendant's statement, but the defendant did not leave the taxi with his/her destination and did not specifically state his/her destination.