The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, mental suffering, and unreasonable sentencing)

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was only believed to have resisted that the police officer’s control and inspection was improper, and did not commit three times the police officer’s three-time violence.

B. It cannot be deemed that the performance of duties by police officers who inspected the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant took a photograph by misapprehending the legal principles is lawful.

C. The Defendant suffered from a man-in-depth disease, over-the-spot, etc. with a mental disorder of Grade III, and was in weak state of ability to distinguish objects and make decisions at the time of the instant case.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 3.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court may recognize the fact of holding three times the left party of B, as the Defendant left party to the face of a police officer B who was dispatched to the site at the time.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. In determining whether a police officer falls under a person subject to questioning under Article 3(1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, the determination of whether a police officer is a person subject to questioning based on the specific circumstances at the time of questioning, as well as the information and professional knowledge obtained in advance, shall be made in accordance with an objective and reasonable standard. However, it cannot be said that a person subject to questioning is required to be suspected of having been arrested or detained under the Criminal Procedure Act. A police officer may suspend a person subject to questioning by a police officer in a reasonable manner that can be accepted within the minimum extent necessary for accomplishing his/her purpose in light of severity of the crime, relation to the crime, urgency of the situation, degree of suspicion, necessity of questioning, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do797, Dec. 11, 2014).