The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine or mistake of facts, did not leave the police officer at the time and place stated in the facts charged, and had the police officer take a bath, but it does not constitute intimidation to interfere with the performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, namely, the Defendant’s instant facts charged at an investigative agency and the lower court’s court, and the fact that the victimized police officer specifically stated the Defendant’s crime at an investigative agency, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant assaulted the police officer’s face by hand, etc. at the time and place indicated in the facts charged.

2) Meanwhile, the facts charged in the instant case are that the Defendant assaulted a police officer to interfere with the legitimate performance of official duties. As seen earlier, insofar as it is recognized that the Defendant assaulted a police officer, whether the Defendant’s bath constitutes intimidation against the crime of obstructing official duties does not affect the establishment of the crime.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is without merit.

B. According to the record of judgment on the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant is deemed to have served alcohol at the time of the instant crime, but in light of the background and method of the crime, and the conduct before and after the instant crime, etc., the Defendant’s judgment or intent is different at the time of the instant crime.