The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) did not see the balp of police officers G, and the Defendant’s act did not constitute the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties on the grounds that there was no legality in performing duties by police officers at the time.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: (1) The defendant tried to use violence against E while speaking for an act of disturbance of a police officer, and continued to use violence against E; (2) the police officer G and H continued desireed to use it; (3) the police officer attempted to arrest E as a flagrant offender in the crime of insult; (4) the police officer G and H attempted to commit an act of a police officer in the course of assisting the above police officer in arresting E; (4) the defendant's act was committed by G and H; and (5) the defendant attempted to commit an act of a police officer; (3) the police officer's act was committed against the defendant; and (4) the defendant's act was committed against him/her; and (4) the defendant's act could not be found to have any serious harm to his/her chest's property unless he/she was found to have a misunderstanding of legal principles, and thus, it could be objectively acknowledged that the act of a police officer in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Act could not be objectively justified.

However, it should be determined on the basis of the specific situation at the time of the control of police officers, and purely objective is ex post facto.