The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, that there was no assault by G, such as having a police officer G gathert soldier, and by illegally arresting a police officer G and H Defendant in the act of committing an offense, thereby obstructing the performance of official duties. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendant (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant asserts that the grounds for appeal are the same even in the lower judgment as the grounds for appeal, whether the Defendant assaulted the police officer G.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged in full view of the circumstances indicated in its judgment.

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

D. A person who was assaulted by a defendant who was well known.

E reported to the police from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the trial, after hearing the desire from the defendant and committing assault, on the ground that he/she has talked about telephone conversations within D and reported to the police.

The defendant was a police officer G and I who was dispatched upon the report.

In order to enter a restaurant(s) in D, the defendant was able to take a bath for himself and police officers, and he was able to see too much.

“E’s statement is consistent and specific, and E’s statement is unfavorable to the Defendant even when he/she had expressed his/her intention not to punish the Defendant in the instant assault case that was the origin of the instant case.