The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In other words, the Defendant did not take a bath to the victim, misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding the legal doctrine.

The victim was pushed the defendant to submit a black image, and the defendant was fluorly fluorly fluorly fluorly fluoring the victim's face, and there was no intention to interfere with the execution of official duties.

Since the victim did not receive the Defendant’s black image from the Defendant and did not know at all about the subsequent procedures, etc., the victim cannot establish a crime of obstructing the Defendant’s performance of official duties.

The punishment sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing (five million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence as to the assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant visited the Busan Police Station B office on December 10, 2019, in order to submit the black image as a manager of C B, and around December 20:30, in relation to the traffic accident of the C, the defendant visited the Busan Police Station B office on December 10, 2019, and at the time, the defendant received the reduction D “Y and the counter party”; or

“Along with the fact that the head of the Gu, “Ising Chewing flag, in accordance with the law, increased the words “har.”, and the Defendant, even before visiting the police station, expressed the desire to “Ising flag” to the above D by telephone, and D was under the influence of alcohol.

판단하여 퇴거를 요구하며 피고인을 저지한 사실, 그로부터 2초 정도 경과한 후 피고인의 손이 위 D의 얼굴을 쳐 위 D의 몸이 휙 돌아가고 뒷걸음질을 친 사실, 피고인은 경찰 피의자신문 당시 “ 상대방이 먼저 제 몸에 손을 대서 제가 ‘ 경찰관 이면 이래도 됩니까

“..........” The police officer was smuggling once.

It is recognized that “the statement” has been stated.

According to the above facts of recognition, it cannot be deemed that the police officer's demand for the withdrawal of the defendant who visited the police station under the influence of alcohol, including bathing, is illegal, and the defendant's act is contrary to the duty.