The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a person employed on the road at the time of the instant case by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the police requested assistance from the police, who did not help the police for the reason of shift work hours, the police was prevented from proceeding the patrol car and listed on the Bossn to resist it, and the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

B. Judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing: 200,000 won

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant stated in the police that "the police reported the same drinking material on the ground that the son was cut, and the police was not dispatched to the police, thereby preventing the person from getting out of the way at the time of the instant case." There is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant prevented the person from using the patrol in order to help the defendant get out of the way at the time of the instant case as argued by the defendant.

Even if the “freshing a fresh that fresh was used on the road for the Defendant’s assertion,” there is no evidence to prove that the fresh was in an emergency to the extent that the fresh would have to get assistance from the police. Rather, according to the fresh photograph image, the time when the Defendant prevented the fresh and obstructed the progress of the freshing is about 15 minutes. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant obstructed the progress of the fresh without taking any measures or volume of 15 minutes, as claimed by the Defendant, even though the fresh was in need of relief, it is judged that there was no such urgent situation as claimed by the Defendant, and the reasonableness of that act

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. “Ex post facto concurrent crimes with respect to the assertion of unfair sentencing” refers to the principle of equity in the case where a judgment is imposed concurrently with the crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive.