The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the assertion that there was no assault against a police officer by a motor vehicle, the Defendant alleged to the same purport, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty by recognizing the fact that the police officer E was injured by exercising the physical force of the motor vehicle, which is a dangerous object, in full view of the circumstances as stated in the judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion, and comprehensively taking into account the circumstances in the part, “the judgment on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion of obstruction of performance of official duties”, the Defendant appears to have recognized the fact that the police officer E was able to attach a motor vehicle in the process of departing from the motor vehicle. Furthermore, in a situation where a motor vehicle was driven by a vehicle rapidly at the same time, E may move out without sufficiently recognizing the circumstance that the motor vehicle

Examining the judgment of the court below and this court in a thorough comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant and defense counsel.

The defendant and defense counsel are not accepted.

B. As to the assertion that it was not a legitimate performance of official duties, the act of the victimized police officer E to have a vehicle on the part of the Defendant does not constitute lawful arrest under the Criminal Procedure Act. Since the Defendant did not produce identification cards, etc. and did not confirm the Defendant’s personal information, the act of the victimized police officer to have a vehicle on the part of the Defendant does not constitute legitimate performance of official duties. 2) In full view of the purpose of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers (hereinafter “Act”), the purpose of Article 1(1) and (2), Article 3(1), (2), (3), and (7) of the Act, and the contents and structure of Article 3(1) of the Act, the police officer is not a person subject to Article 3(1) of the Act.