The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, did not have committed an assault by a police officer, such as at one time selling the trees of the police officer, or spathing flab, etc., and thus, the judgment below convicting the Defendant of this facts was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion

B. Since the defendant did not want the police officer to take a bath, and there is no illegality or crime of resistance against the police officer, it is not illegal to give a photograph to a mobile phone, and thus, it is not illegal to give him/her a photograph of video on his/her mobile phone, and even if it is recognized that the defendant committed an assault against

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor tried to examine the reasoning for appeal ex officio, and in the case of the trial at the trial of the party, the prosecutor tried to take a cell phone image for the following reasons: (a) “A defendant's sway G (Nam, 39 years old), who was the victim, sway G (ma), swayed him/her to take a cell phone while entering the earth belt and leaving his/her cell phone as a cell phone; (b) he/she changed his/her son’s son’s son’s son’s son and police officer’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son and the victim’s slope G (ma, 39 years old)’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son and police officer’s son’s son’s son.

However, even though the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

B. We examine the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts.