The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not assault F by a police officer who performs his duties (hereinafter “F”).

B. Legal doctrine misunderstandings, even if the Defendant abused F.

Even if there is nothing but to exercise the force to the extent that it does not reach assault in the crime of interference with the performance of official duties. Furthermore, at the time when F was dispatched to the site, F did not perform the procedure under Article 3(4) of the Act on the Performance of Police Duties at the time of arrest in the act of committing an act of violence, the so-called "non-fac" principle was not notified at the time of arrest in the act of crime, and even at the time of the investigation, the Defendant reported assault to the police to the police, but did not perform legitimate official duties, such as pursuing the suspicion of the Defendant

Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute a crime of obstructing the execution of official duties.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which could be revealed by the record as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., F, at the time of the police investigation and at the court of the original instance, the Defendant took twice the vessel.

(2) At the time of the police investigation and at the court of the original instance, the defendant took twice the F's vessel at the time of the investigation.

(3) In light of the fact that the Defendant consistently stated the fact of assault at the court below’s first time, and then listened to CDs recorded on the site at the fourth public trial of the court below, the Defendant can fully recognize the fact of assaulting F as stated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime of the court below.

On the other hand, the defense counsel of the defendant does not mean that the F makes a fighting as stated by the police at the time of the police investigation.

In the court of the court below, the question of the prosecutor's question, " whether the testimony was made twice twice to the degree that the witness was swornly."