The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not assault the Victim D, who is a security guard, as described in each of the facts charged of this case; and (b) did not assault the Police Officer F, who was dispatched upon receipt of a report, but all of the facts charged of this case are found guilty; and (c) the

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant assaulted the victim D as stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case, and assaulted the police officer F to interfere with the legitimate execution of duties of the police officer concerning the handling of the reported case by the police officer F, so the defendant's misconception of facts is without merit.

① The victim D consistently stated in the investigative agency and the lower court’s court that “Around September 8, 2015, at the entrance of the C parking lot located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, about 00:20, hereinafter referred to as “the victim D” refers to whether the Defendant satisfyed to satisfy to sat to satisfy,” and that “The Defendant

“Absing the victim’s bath, the victim was drinking, and the victim was found to have been the same as the withdrawal, so the Defendant saw the victim’s fat, and the withdrawal was the same as the fat in the house, and the Defendant continued to see the fat on the house, and then intending to display the drinking and fat the fat, and reported to other fat, and the victim filed 112 reports.

“The police officer called the Defendant, and the Defendant spited the police officer’s blick with her hand, and then spit the police officer’s spits and spits the police officer after the police officer’s blick.

“The above victim D’s statement is specific and consistent to the extent that it is impossible to make a statement unless he/she has experienced directly, and the circumstances leading to the statement are natural, as well as the F’s statement that is deemed below are consistent without inconsistency, and there is also a circumstance that the above victim D’s statement may be changed differently.