The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by defense counsel;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not assault the police officer F, or blick the driver’s seat car owned by the victim H as a tool for a steel system not to be used.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding a guilty of obstructing official duties and destroying property among the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The lower court’s sentence that sentenced 8 months or more of imprisonment with prison labor is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly admitted and examined the following circumstances based on the evidence, namely, ① the police officer F, in relation to interference with the performance of official duties, upon receipt of a report to the effect that the civil petitioner was found at Pyeongtaek-si Office C and D around June 10, 2017, the civil petitioner was collecting office staff members, booming staff members, and booming, etc., and made efforts to return to his house while the criminal defendant was sent back to his house, but the defendant was able to look at his face with his head while he was blish and blishing. ② At the lower court court’s court, the police officer J, who is a public official of Pyeongtaek-si and C, and I received the appearance of the police officer to the effect that “the defendant was able to ask the police officer for his head and compensation for land and housing,” and the defendant was able to take the appearance of the police officer and take the defendant’s appearance to the effect that “The defendant was bleep and boomed by the police officer.”

The victim H is entitled to answer “,” and the victim’s abduction.