The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. In fact, the defendant misunderstanding the facts did not have assaulted the police officer E, such as walking the clothes of the police officer E, etc., although the defendant misunderstanding the fact that he saws the police officer E to take a bath, he saw the main standing signboard. Thus, the judgment below which found the defendant guilty of this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

① 경찰관 E는 수사기관에서 원심에 이르기까지 “ 주점에서 싸움이 있다는 신고를 받고 현장에 출동하여 다툼으로 인해 흥분 상태에 있던 피고인을 진정시키면서 인적 사항을 묻자 피고인이 내가 피해 자라고 욕을 하면서 발로 복부를 걷어찼다.

After that, a detailed and consistent statement was made on the background, process, content, and subsequent circumstances of the assault, etc., stating that the main standing signboard was damaged as a consequence of the destruction thereof (Evidence No. 17, 18, and No. 47, 48, and 50, the trial records No. 17, 18, and the trial records No. 47, 48, and 50). There is no circumstance that

② 피고인은 수사기관에서 “ 술을 많이 마셨고 친구로부터 일방적으로 맞아 흥분상태에 있어 경찰관을 발로 찼는지 솔직히 기억나지 않는다 ”라고 진술하였는데( 증거기록 제 30 쪽), 당시 상황을 목격한 친구 I로부터 피고인이 경찰관을 발로 찬 것을 보지 못했다는 이야기를 전해 듣고, 폭행 사실이 없었다고

It is now changing.

In this regard, I stated in the first instance that “I received a telephone and did not see it from the beginning as the Defendant, and she did not see that she did not see the Defendant’s passage to police officers E, and she only saw a standing signboard.”

I’s above statement is between the intermediate.