The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1 Summary of grounds for appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the Defendant’s desire to the police officers at the time of the instant case, or committed a fry by selling them, but there is no reason to support the Defendant from walking the fry.

In addition, it does not constitute violence in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties because the police officers did not actively assault the defendant in the process of driving the defendant, but merely passive resistances.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a guilty verdict against the defendant by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Despite the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, the lower court erred by neglecting this.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, according to the witness D and B’s each legal statement, the police statement of D with respect to D, the statement of B, and the copy of the on-siteCCTV (H) video CDs, the defendant can be recognized as the defendant, immediately before the police officers arrested the defendant, that the police officers walk D from 2 to 3 times.

Defendant

및 변호인은 피고인이 발로 D의 정강이를 걷어찼는지 여부에 관하여 D의 법정진술과 B의 법정진술 중 걷어찬 행위의 태양에 관한 내용이 서로 다르기 때문에 피고인이 발로 D의 정강이를 찼다는 사실이 증명되지 못하였다고 주장하나, D, B 모두 피고인이 발로 D의 정강이 부위를 찼다는 것은 명확하게 진술하고 있고, 그 걷어찬 방향만을 다르게 진술할 뿐인 점, B의 진술 취지는 피고인이 앞으로 D의 정강이 부위를 찼다는 것은 보지 못하였다는 것일 뿐인 점 등을 종합하면, 피고인 및...