The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the Defendant had not expressed a desire to do so to the victim, is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of

B. In consideration of various circumstances on the Defendant’s grounds of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's legitimately adopted and examined the argument of misunderstanding of facts, i.e., the victim was called to the E operated by G upon receiving a theft report at the time of the court below and asked the defendant about the theft. The defendant's large interest is consistently stated that "this son, a police officer gue, and a ombom" means "feb, a feb, a febome, a febome, a febomb febome," and G at the time of the court below's investigation agency and the defendant appeared to witness the victim "I are the persons of distinguished service to the State, I cannot receive taxes, I cannot find the facts of insult as stated in the judgment of the court below." In light of the fact that there are many people at the time of the case at the time, there are sufficient grounds for the defendant's assertion that the above facts were insulting as stated in the judgment of the court below.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that police officers did not inform the police officers of the following principles, such as the reason for arrest and the right to appoint defense counsel, while arresting them as flagrant offenders, and that they somewhat passed through the process of setting up against such unlawful performance of official duties. However, in a case where a judicial police officer arrests a flagrant offender, he/she can appoint a defense counsel as to the summary of the crime, the reason for detention, and the reason for