The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle, the Defendant did not assault the victim as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime committed in the lower judgment.

2) As to the obstruction of the performance of official duties, the Defendant did not assault H as stated in the facts constituting the crime No. 2 of the lower judgment.

Even if not,

Even if the above act is intended to resist the police officer's illegal performance of official duties without notifying the intent of the crime or his/her right to appoint a counsel, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of interference with the performance of official duties.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution in August, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, as to the act of assault, the victim E police from the police to the court of the court below, and the list of 112 reported cases, etc., the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of assault as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime in the judgment below. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. As to the obstruction of the performance of official duties, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the police statement by Defendant H as to whether Defendant Defendant Defendant’s Ha’s Ha’s Ha’s Ha’s Ha’s Ha’s Ha’s Ha’s Ha’s Ha’s Ba, etc., the Defendant’s assertion on this part is rejected.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s legality of the arrest of the Defendant in the act of committing an offense and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the witness E of the lower court stated in the court of the lower court to the effect that “the police officer arrested the Defendant as an act of committing an offense when notifying the Defendant of the doctrine of Disturbance” (the trial record No. 46 pages), and ② the police officer H was the Defendant.