The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the legal principles and mistake of facts, ① the Defendant was only once sold by the victimized police officer, and there was no assault against the victimized police officer, such as the instant facts charged.

In addition, unlike the written indictment of this case, the Defendant did not display his/her son's face to the face of the victimized police officer, and he/she took the arms of the victimized police officer rather than taking the arms after taking a bath to the victimized police officer.

(2) The defendant did not have any intention to assault a victimized police officer, or to interfere with the execution of official duties.

③ The Defendant was not arrested by assaulting the victimized police officer, and the Defendant was arrested by the victimized police officer after advertising and interesting the Defendant’s bath.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to obstruction of the performance of official duties and mistake of facts.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, namely, ① the Defendant acknowledged the instant facts charged at an investigative agency and the lower court’s court’s court’s finding of the facts charged, ② the Defendant’s act of assaulting a police officer who suffered damage as stated in the instant facts charged and obstructing the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties, according to the police’s statement protocol as to the video recorded in the video CD (hereinafter “the video of this case”), etc., the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant assaulted the police officer who suffered damage and interfered with the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties, and even considering the video of this case, the Defendant did not fully reveal the facts of assault other

One of the arguments is that the video of this case is different from the images taken by the entire site, such as CCTV, and the police officer takes the photographic device as his hand.