The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the crime of interference with the performance of official duties by mistake of facts, the F's head was first taken by the defendant, and the defendant's chest was sealed by the F's chest.

Although talking, there is no fact that the defendant franchising the Franchis.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the crime of the 2016 highest order 6426 highest order of the lower judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and the crime of the 2017 highest order of the lower court: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant obstructed police officers from performing their duties as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant, and thus the defendant's allegation of mistake is not accepted

① In a case where a witness’s statement, including the victim, is mutually consistent and consistent with the facts charged, it shall not be rejected without permission, unless there exist any separate and reliable evidence to deem the credibility of the statement objectively deemed objectively and objectively (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). The F’s statement from an investigative agency to a court of the lower trial was generally consistent with regard to the facts of damage, the circumstance of the case, and the situation before and after the trial. Such statement is specific and natural to the extent that it is difficult to make a statement without actual experience, and there is no other circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement.

② A taxi engineer C who had observed the instant case in the vicinity of the Defendant and F. At the time of the lower court’s trial, “The Defendant, first of all, was pushed down with a shoulder and head while taking a bath, and was physically fighting between the Defendant and F. However, the F.