The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of interfering with the execution of official duties, although the defendant only tried to speak B, and did not interfere with the execution of official duties jointly with B and C, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court can fully recognize the fact that the Defendant jointly with Defendant B and C, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower court’s judgment, assaulted J to the police officer affiliated with the I police box, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the crime obstructing the performance of official duties is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the defendant.

A. The police officer, who belongs to the I police box, stated at the investigative agency that “A police officer who intends to move to arrest K police officers, was frightened by the Defendant by carrying the left shoulder and body three times, and went beyond the floor of the Defendant and the body fighting match (Evidence No. 42 of the Evidence Records).” The police officer assigned to the I police box, stated at the investigative agency that “A police officer was frighted by the Defendant and frightened by the Defendant, who tried to get the Defendant to report that he was assaulted by C, and later went beyond the body fighting by the Defendant.” (Evidence No. 49 of the Evidence Records). It is consistent with the above J police officer’s statement that “A police officer assigned to the I police box, who was frighted by C, was frighted by the Defendant and the Defendant.”

On the other hand, the J and K did not have any circumstances to make a false statement unfavorable to the defendant, and the contents of each of the above statements are consistent with CCTV images (Evidence Records No. 165-1).

B. According to CCTV images of the I police box, the Defendant’s act was recorded in a cream with the shoulder of the J, and the above act of the Defendant against the police who voltageed B in light of the situation and circumstances of the act.