The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts, was merely a police officer F, who attempted to commit a crime against the Defendant and sold his arms once, and did not use violence against the police officer, such as facts charged.

B. The punishment for an unfair one deliberation on sentencing (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the first instance court’s judgment was no longer maintained because the Prosecutor requested the appellate court to change the facts charged in the instant case as stated in the revised facts charged, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.

However, even if there are such reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

[Revised on August 4, 2015, at around 23:45, the Defendant: (a) took a bath to the police officer affiliated with the E police box called “Is Sysia Sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysnasia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia sysia synasia synasia sysia sysia syna

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's 112 report processing and lawful execution of duties concerning arrest of flagrant offenders.

3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed the acts indicated in the facts charged against the victimized police officers. Unlike the Defendant’s assertion, it cannot be deemed that the police officer F was forcibly pushed the Defendant’s body to board the police officer, or that the Defendant merely displayed the Defendant’s arms toward the police officer F.

Therefore, the defendant-appellant.