The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel

A. In the course of the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts, he merely contacted the face of the police officer E, and did not intentionally assault the above police officer, and the above act by the Defendant does not constitute an assault to the extent that it interfere with the performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's face of the above police officer and interfered with the execution of official duties.

Recognizing that fact, mistake has been committed.

B. In light of the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the instant case, and the fact that the degree of assault is minor, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced a community service order for one year and 80 hours under the suspended sentence of six months is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In relation to a crime of interference with judgment on the assertion of facts, violence is sufficient to the extent that it would interfere with the performance of official duties by a public official in light of the nature. It includes both direct and indirect exercise of force against a public official (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do449, Jun. 1, 2007; 98Do662, May 12, 1998). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, although the police officer called out upon receiving a 112 report, notified the defendant that he should return home to the defendant, the defendant was "the crime of destruction of home," "the homicide Da," and "the son Da," and the defendant who continued to go through the humbbbbling, who did not go home to the defendant's face after taking the humbling, but did not go back to the defendant's face after taking the humbling.