The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was found to have entered the mobile phone agency operated by D at the time of the instant case, but it was not a fact that the police officer called out after receiving a report after the fact that the Defendant took a bath or acted as a threat to the police officer, but the court below found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, which erred by misunderstanding the facts, thereby affecting

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below reasoned that ① the defendant was under the influence of alcohol on the mobile phone agencies operated by D and Do, and the police officer was dispatched to the scene of the case by reporting D to the police (in this circumstance, 47 pages of investigation records), ② the slope G belonging to the Donannam-dong Police Station F box called at the time upon receipt of the report, and the police officer called the defendant to the effect that G would have the young of the defendant out of the end of the punishment, and the defendant stated that "I would go against this spathy and dys, and I would go against it," and that "I would go against the police officer's removal from position," and that the defendant voluntarily made a statement to the police officer that "I would go against the duty of the witness's removal from position on the date of the 5th trial," and that I would have the defendant's refusal to take the witness's right to request the above witness's removal from his position on the date of the 5th trial."