The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error, misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. In response to the police officer's request to reduce the music of the vehicle, the defendant asked him to reduce the voice on behalf of the defendant, and the police officer did not interfere with the police officer's exercise of duty to maintain order since he did not take a bath or assault the police officer. However, even though the police officer's resistance against arrest of flagrant offenders, the court below's judgment convicting the defendant of this violation because he interfered with the police officer's legitimate maintenance of order and the execution of duty to maintain public order.

B. On the other hand, in relation to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, "public official duties" should be deemed legitimate execution of official duties. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles which acknowledged obstruction of performance of official duties against the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles, in a situation where other police officers did not comply with the requirement of arrest in the act of committing a crime of obstruction of official duties and failed to comply with procedural requirements, such as notification of the doctrine, in a situation where other police officers failed to meet the requirement of arrest in the act of obstruction of official duties, and the defendant arrested the defendant without complying with such procedural requirements.

2. Determination

A. In light of the reasoning of the first instance court’s judgment regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and the principle of direct examination, and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or the result of the first instance court’s examination and the result of the additional examination of evidence made by the time