The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The lower court, on April 14, 2018, determined that the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties by finding the Jeonju Police Station around 01:50 on April 14, 2018, however, the Defendant’s finding in the said Police Station was around 03:5 on April 5, 2018.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous as to the date and time of crime.

On April 5, 2018, the police officer, first of all, 2018, went back to the defendant, and thus, the police officer’s performance of duties cannot be deemed lawful.

Since the defendant's act as stated in the judgment of the court below was an act corresponding to the police officer's illegal act of performing his duties, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties cannot be established.

The act of the criminal facts in this part of the judgment below related to the injury constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act because there is considerable reason for the act to defend the infringement of one's legal interests.

The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

According to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the lower court’s evidence duly adopted and examined as to the time when the Defendant discovered the Jeonju Police Station in relation to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant may be recognized as interfering with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers B and C around April 14, 2018.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

According to the physical confirmation of the arrested and detained suspect who appears to have prepared immediately after the police officer C arrested the defendant as an offender in the act of committing an offense, the date and time of arrest of the defendant is indicated as 02:30 April 14, 2018.

(1) The investigation report stating the facts of obstruction of the performance of official duties of the defendant, the refusal of the defendant to affix the seal to the letter of arrest of the flagrant offender and the letter of physical confirmation, and the defendant's abusiveation in the T district where the defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender.