The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, did not contain any misunderstanding of facts against the police officers, by merely putting his arms on spirits at the time of the instant case.

Therefore, even though the defendant should be acquitted, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, as it is acknowledged that the Defendant committed an assault against a police officer on duty like the facts stated in the lower judgment

① At the same time, the victim F statement from an investigative agency to the lower court that the Defendant was drinking to police officers.

② At the time of the instant case, H also stated that the witness, who was a witness, was frightening the Defendant’s arms and went to the police.

(A) A witness H made a statement to the effect that the Defendant did not appear as an intention or attacking the police officer. However, as at the time, it appears to be personal opinion or evaluation based on the fact that the Defendant was not a attitude, such as going to drink toward a certain objective, as the Defendant’s right, (3) at the time of the instant case, the Defendant and the investigative agency and the lower court changed to the effect that the police officer’s flick and flicks the Defendant’s flick and flick at the time of the instant case, and that the Defendant flicked the police officer’s hand in the process of resisting the Defendant.

However, according to the above F and H’s statements, there was no fact that a police officer gets or gets a defendant into a drinking house, and it is recognized that the defendant voluntarily puts a police officer into a drinking house while the defendant voluntarily coming from a drinking house.