The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the obstruction of the performance of official duties by misunderstanding the legal principles, a drinking driver was driving.

A police officer E (hereinafter “act”) is a legitimate defense in the course of a police officer’s measurement of drinking with strong attitude, in the absence of reasonable grounds to determine a person, and the refusal of such measurement constitutes a legitimate defense.

Nevertheless, arresting the Defendant as an offender in the act of committing an offense constitutes an illegal arrest, and since a series of arrest, conduct, and detention conducted thereafter is not a legitimate official duty, the Defendant’s act of gathering mobile phone from G police officers and walking the police officer E’s buckbucks (hereinafter “B act”) does not constitute an interference with the performance of official duties.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport.

Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (i) police officers E, etc. were sent to the site after receiving 112 reports to the effect that young male and female 5 to 6 drink and drinking, and (ii) police officers were parked in a place other than a parking lot at the time when the police officers called to the site, and the Defendant stated that he was parked in the vehicle at the time when the police officers called to the site, and the vehicle was parked before 2 hours, and the Defendant was parked in the vehicle. (iii) The police officers demanded the Defendant to take a drinking test by clarifying the facts through CCTV, etc. after taking a drinking test with priority, and the Defendant was able to take a drinking test at a level of about 20 meters, leaving the site; (iv) the above police officers went away from the site; (v) the Defendant was faced with the chest of the above police officers by shouldering him; and (v) the above police officers used the act of arresting the Defendant as an obstruction of the performance of official duties.

In addition, the court below is based on the above facts.