The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not have committed any disturbance at the time when the Defendant arrived at the D Zone of the Sungnam Police Station and was subject to an investigation of re-employment, and there was only a fact that the police officers belonging to the said D Zone abandoned the Defendant at a place other than the Defendant’s house, and thereafter resisting him again. This constitutes a legitimate act by resisting the illegal abandonment of the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 600,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, was able to undergo an investigation of the re-taking type at the D District District of the Sungnam Police Station D District, and was found to have caused sewage lids outside the said district, and the defendant demanded the police officers belonging to the said district group to leave the house without returning home after receiving a notification disposition through a re-taking type, and the police officers belonging to the said district group requested the above police officers to leave the house. At the request of the defendant, the police officers belonging to the said district group posted the patrol lane to the defendant, but the defendant could not go to the above restaurant because he could not go to the above restaurant because he could not go to the defendant again due to a defect again due to a restaurant reported by a re-taking type, and according to the above facts found, according to the above facts, the defendant could not be deemed to have committed any unlawful abandonment again by the police officers belonging to the said district.