The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. Whether a police officer F continued to drink alcohol while a police officer F tested a drinking test against the Defendant, but did not respond to drinking, even if the Defendant did not have a drinking effect, or whether the Defendant was under the influence of drinking.

It is necessary to ask F with unnecessary questions and take a bath to F, and to see F’s appearance and shoulder, and it does not constitute assault F as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The instant traffic accident that a police officer F called upon the 112 report was caused only by minor material damage, and if the police officer did not take a drinking test against the parties to the traffic accident and did not take a drinking test, it would be legitimate to carry out the procedure in accordance with the procedure for handling the physical damage. However, if the F drinking alcohol was done by the Defendant in a bruent manner, it would be legitimate to carry out the procedure in accordance with the procedure for handling the physical damage.

In order to continue unnecessary questions, it is impossible to perform legitimate duties with respect to traffic accident management affairs, and the defendant has not committed violence against a police officer to the extent that he/she interferes with public officials' performance of duties.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the F, consistent from the investigation agency to the court of the court below, and the Defendant took a bath and assault as stated in the judgment of the court below.

The statement, ② F has made a concrete statement about the material part of the situation at the time of violence and before and after it, ② The F has made a statement that conforms to F’s statement in light of the details, contents, etc. of the statement, ③ G has made a statement consistent with F’s statement in the investigative agency and the court of original instance (whether the Defendant had f’s distribution and shoulder several times, whether he had f’s shouldered, and whether he had f’s hand floor, etc.). It is not completely inconsistent with F and G’s statement.

Even if the defendant takes a bath to F and assaults F's double and shoulder, F and G.