The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) visited the C District District as of the date and time indicated in the facts charged, but only requested the treatment of civil petitions or resisting the handling of civil affairs.

Therefore, Defendant’s act does not constitute “a riotous or disorderly act by uttering or doing rough words and conducts” under Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the witness D of the court below, who controlled the defendant, stated that “I explained the procedures for information on civil petitions to the defendant on the taxi engineer and operating method and returned home,” and the defendant was sent a warning to 20 minutes while continuing without only the defendant, and thus requested a summary judgment as the public office’s principal cancellation column.” ② The witness D of the court below, who instructed the police to the effect that “I explained about the procedure for information on civil petitions to him/her, and sent a warning to her, and even if he/she continued to punish him/her, I requested a summary judgment as the public office’s principal cancellation column.” The witness D of the court below, who explained the police officer to the effect that he/she was unable to properly respond to the police officer’s duties, and the legislative intent of Article 3(3)1 of the Punishment of Minor Crimes Act, including the use of force against him/her, cannot reach the extent of punishment against the police officer under Article 3(1)31 of the Punishment Act.