The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles added the defendant's defense counsel to the purport that the injury suffered by the victims does not constitute "injury" in the crime of injury through the summary of the oral argument, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal due to the assertion after the deadline for submission of the statement of grounds for appeal expires, and even considering the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below's determination that recognized

The defendant did not receive patrols with his own vehicle, but received patrols from the defendant's vehicle, so the defendant did not have intention to obstruct the performance of official duties and damage public goods.

However, unlike the facts charged, the court below found the patrol vehicle guilty of causing the injury of special obstruction of performance of official duties and damage to special public goods without modification of the indictment while recognizing the fact that it received the Defendant vehicle.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below acknowledged the circumstances as stated in the judgment below based on the evidence, and found the court below as follows: "The defendant's failure to comply with the police officer's demand for stopping and continuing to drive the vehicle by driving the patrol, the front part of the patrol vehicle's left side and the front part of the patrol vehicle's right side is the front part of the patrol vehicle's vehicle. The judgment that interfered with the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning the crackdown on drunk driving by using a dangerous object, thereby causing injury to the police officer, and damaged the patrol vehicle, which is a public object. There is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by

On the other hand, the lower court.