The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant case, the Defendant did not recognize all the facts that there was a victim police officer demanding the suspension of a vehicle in the situation where the vehicle was parked after leaving the vehicle to get out of the drinking driving control site at the time of the instant case, and that there was no intention to interfere with the performance of official duties.

In addition, the injury suffered by the police officer of one victim is extremely minor and cannot be said to constitute the injury of one victim because it is naturally cured without the need for treatment.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of causing injury to the performance of special duties of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant’s wife, who had loaded his/her vehicle to escape from the drinking control site, demanded the suspension of the vehicle by the victim police officer as part of his/her official duty, and accordingly, he/she had an intention to obstruct the performance of official duty, such as the fact that the Defendant started his/her vehicle while stopping the vehicle, and that the victim’s police officer’s wife was knee in the front part of the vehicle, and that the injury caused by the instant shock constitutes the crime of causing the injury to the victim’s official duty.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is without merit.

① The victim consistently made a statement consistent with the facts constituting an offense in the police, the prosecution, and the court of original instance (see, e.g., “at the time of the police uniform, the victim was suffering from luminous vests, and the Defendant’s vehicle was under the influence of drinking and making an internship.