The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not contain any fact that the Defendant had the face of police officer E, as stated in the facts charged, and the Defendant tried to return home after calculating the drinking value from the head of the instant C head office, and the two police officers of the Ap head of the instant police office went back to home, making the Defendant’s arms known to be unsatised and tried to take off, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion

2. On July 14, 2012, at least 3:55 of the new wall business owner of the instant case: (a) the Defendant, without paying the drinking value, requested emergency bells to the police at the same time through the closure (ADAT CAPS); (b) the staffF of the closure dispatch dispatch and the police uniform; and (c) the police officer E, upon receiving a report, dispatched the site of this case to the head of the instant house; and (d) the Defendant, at the investigative agency and the lower court court’s court, tried to take it after the police was dispatched to the head of the instant house. The Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol, intending to take it back by speaking the police, and tried to obtain the Defendant’s oral statement and return it to the police; and (b) the Defendant’s faces cannot be seen as legitimate execution of official duties by taking into account the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s unlawful statement and evidence, including the Defendant’s oral investigation into the face of the police officer; and (b) the Defendant’s unlawful execution of official duties.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and it affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged in the grounds of appeal.