The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no fact that the Defendant committed an act of disturbing the revocation of the State falling under Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

The defendant's act is a legitimate act that does not go against the social norms as an objection to the illegal arrest of a flagrant offender, so long as he/she was a disposition of non-suspecting the criminal facts that served as the basis for the arrest of the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the purport of the relevant provision of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, under the influence of alcohol, to ensure that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles constitutes a riotous or disorderly act by uttering or doing rough words and behavior, it is reasonable to interpret that the meaning of “under the influence of alcohol” means a case where a police officer, etc. refuses to comply with a legitimate direction of a public official, such as a police officer, or evades a disturbance, unlike ordinary times, and it is difficult to view that it is limited to “where a person lacks the ability to make a decision or make a judgment under the influence of alcohol,” and that it is limited to “where a person lacks the ability to make a decision or make a judgment under the influence of alcohol.”

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, was able to engage in spirits, such as taking a bath as stated in the facts charged, returning to, or taking out from, the office, etc., and harming the inside of the office, and sufficiently recognize the facts and the perception thereof.

In full view of the details, etc. of the Defendant’s statement, it includes criticism of the police officers who arrested him as a flagrant offender and investigate him as a flagrant offender and excessive social status, etc., and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act is very rough.