The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (person who was guilty of fact) did not commit an assault against a police officer on the ground that he did not go beyond the police officer’s boom.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The prosecutor (e.g., a fine of one million won) sentenced by the lower court is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On January 23, 2016, at around 23:20 on January 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) asked the Defendant whether he/she was committing a thief (the age of 42) who is a police officer belonging to the regional police station E district unit of the branch police station, dispatched after having received a report from 112 that he/she was committing a thief; and (b) asked him/her about why he/she committed a thief; (c) “whether he/she would be treated as a crime of fluorg”; and (d) “nicker,” while blocking the front of slopeF, he/she sawd up the slopingF on his/her own side by pusheding him/her.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted police officers to interfere with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in criminal investigations.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged based on the evidence in its reasoning.

C. According to the records, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) Examining the video recording of the situation at the time, the police officer F, while the Defendant and the police officer had franced, stated that the police officer “F, by even spherb sp and spherb sp,” wal

h. He stated that he will bring in the forum, and that he will be aware of it by the police officer of this fee.

After having given the answer, the film was taken by using a little number of images from the Defendant.

② The Defendant listened to the foregoing F’s speech, and as soon as the Defendant seems to have shown the intention to not exercise the equitable power immediately, she started to work as a police officer in a manner that sets the head with a pipe of the field of the region while working as a police officer. The police officer F is the same.