The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The facts charged of this case are as follows: (a) on November 28, 2016, the Defendant’s 'C' located in the Donsan-gu in the front of the Donsan-si on the front of the Donsan-si on the 116th day, and “the Defendant and his her her her fe-gu D are drunk with other customers, and the f of the police officer called to the site after receiving a report 112, would restrain D and arrest him as a flagrant offender; (b) three times by her f face face; (c) three times by her fat; (d) the f of the police officer’s face was sealed in the wall, and the part of the blue-gu face was sealed once, thereby hindering the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reports by the police officer on 112.

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

The gist of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal on this point is that, while the Defendant committed a crime against a police officer’s illegal arrest of friendly D, the Defendant’s grandchildren by the police officer were committed. However, although the Defendant did not assault the police officer as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations and recognized the facts in violation of the rules of evidence and thereby convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the act of a political party, which is unlawful

However, the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise of fact finding and its premise is within the exclusive power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s finding of facts does not seem to exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

B. There is no error in the lower court’s judgment by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, such as legitimate acts.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.