The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).

The recognition of facts constituting a crime must be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the preparation of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons stated in its reasoning, the judgment of the court of first instance that found the defendant guilty on August 30, 2015 of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the facts constituting a crime interfering with the performance of official duties is justifiable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is not unlawful at that time, and it is so decided that the defendant had the ability to distinguish the ability and intention of determining the ability of the police officer to change things, and was not in a state of lacking the ability, the court rejected the

The allegation of the grounds of appeal, which is erroneous in the judgment of the court below, is the purport of disputing the determination of facts by the court below. It is nothing more than denying the judgment of the court below on the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding. In addition, even when examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the legality of public service performance, police officers’ duty enforcement measures, etc., or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation principle against logical and empirical rules

In addition, the argument that the court below's determination of sentencing contains an error of incomplete deliberation as to the defendant's circumstances is ultimately an unfair argument of sentencing.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is sentenced.