The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant does not contain the F head of the police officer;

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the judgment of the court below and the court below, the fact that the defendant was at the time of the defendant's head of F.

As to this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that there was no fact in the police officer, but in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

The police officer F makes a statement to the effect that the police officer F was consistently headed from the investigative agency to the trial of the party in three times from the defendant.

In particular, according to F's statement among the protocol of interrogation of the police prepared by the defendant(2, 2, 3) of the defendant, the defendant was sent to the D restaurant located in Daegu Suwon-gu C by the defendant's report and the defendant was sent to the D restaurant located in the police station in the police station from the time when the defendant was delivered to the defendant, the defendant was sent to the police station in the case of head inside the police station, and the defendant's behavior in the police station after

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was under the influence of drinking four soldiers (Evidence No. 2No. 37 of the Evidence Records) and recognized that the police officer’s complaint against the daily treatment of the police officer F was made in the police vehicle.

In order to speak about the handling of the case to the police officer who was aboard the patrol vehicle, the fact that there was a physical contact is recognized by making a statement as follows: “The low hand of the vehicle was in contact with the police officer’s body due to the move of the vehicle (No. 2. 35 pages of the evidence record)”, and “In order to see the face of the police officer who was seated above, the front part of the shoulder and the left side of the vehicle (No. 15 pages of the evidence record).”

Therefore, the court below convicted of the facts charged of this case.