The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the violation of the Food Sanitation Act of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant was under the state of avoiding crackdown and returning to the place, and did not operate the business around the time and time of the original trial.

With regard to the obstruction of performance of official duties, the defendant merely made an objection, and there is no fact of intimidation as well as physical acts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, as the court below properly mentioned, started business with a criminal intent to continue to conduct a reported business on the day of the instant case, and had a condition to commence business at any time and at the same place after diving even after the first crackdown, and that the defendant was in a state of business being conducted at the same time and at any time at the time, and that the judgment below was in a state of business being reported at the time and time. Furthermore, it can be recognized the charges of this part that the police officer, who received a report and investigated the scene of crime, made a threatening statement

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is just and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts, and thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is difficult to accept

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is accepted: (a) the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime; and (b) there are some circumstances to consider in the motive that the defendant did not engage in business activities for a livelihood with respect to the occupation of unreported business; and (c) there are no particular damages to police officers in relation to the obstruction of performance of official duties.

However, the defendant denies his criminal act.