The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The Defendant, by misunderstanding the facts, did not interfere with his official duties by taking a bath to police officers D and E, or by committing violence while putting his hand on his hand.

B. The sentence of first deliberation (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence for community service work, 240 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court on the assertion of facts, the Defendant is sufficiently recognized to interfere with his/her official duties by assaulting the police officer as stated in the instant facts charged, such as: (a) the Defendant’s attempt to access a police officer with a aggressive attitude despite a police officer’s restraint; (b) the Defendant’s statement D and E is believed in light of the circumstances revealed in the above images; and (c) the Defendant, as indicated in the instant facts charged, intends to take a bath to the said police officer; and (d) intending to display both descendants; and (e) he/she has interfered with his/her official duties.

B. In the instant case where there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions that would be considered when regarding the unfair argument of sentencing in the appellate trial, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, health status, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, it is difficult to deem that the first deliberation sentence is unfair as it goes beyond the scope of discretion.

3. If so, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, according to Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “a summary of evidence” column for “a summary of the first instance judgment” is corrected to “a criminal investigation report (on-site CCTV video reading)” as “a CD.”