The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by mistakeing the facts, was faced with the police officer at the time when the victimized police officer did not notify of the Madern Principles and resisted the Madern by resisting the Madern and resisting the Madern, and did not intentionally injure or support the chest of the above police officer. Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of suspended sentence in April) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. ① The defendant was pushed the chest of the police officer who was damaged by her hand while viewing the police officer who was injured, and the hand hand was hard to be free, ② the defendant's hand hand was cut back to be followed by the defendant's hand, ② the defendant's hand hand, etc. ③ the defendant tried to walk the bridge of the police officer who was injured by her hand on two occasions while she was seated in the earth. ④ At the time of the police investigation, F, who was voluntarily accompanied with the defendant at the time, she was unable to wear the lock because she was frighted with the police officer "at the time of the police investigation, she was frighted by drinking and pushed the police officer, making it difficult for the police officer (the defendant) to drink the drinking alcohol.

It is memory to say that it is the word.

I stated, “The police officer interfered with the performance of official duties,” and asked to take the wall.

It is possible to arrest the police officer who stated as "the statement", 5. The police officer who is carrying out legitimate official duties in the court of original instance, and notify the police officer of the doctrine of disturbance by committing violence.

In full view of the fact that the defendant testified, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, since it is difficult to see that the defendant committed assault against the above police officer in the course of responding to the illegal performance of official duties by the victimized police officer.