The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It cannot be readily concluded that the injury suffered by a police officer causing mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles was caused in the course of the Defendant’s insertion and obstructing the performance of official duties, and the above injury can be naturally cured without any special treatment, and thus, cannot be said to be an injury under the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged (the injury caused by special obstruction of performance of official duties).

B. At the time of committing the instant crime causing bodily harm or obstruction of performance of official duties, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things due to the administration of phiphones under the influence of force.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, as to the assertion that the injury was not caused by the Defendant’s obstruction of performance of official duties, the lower court’s determination on mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine is based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, the Defendant’s residential intrusion and Q of the victim Q (hereinafter “victim”).

) Detection of the Defendant, which was hidden at the end of the building behind the “O” building, and the fact that the Defendant inserted (25 cm in length and 100 cm in length in length by putting the wall up to the damaged police officer, thereby obstructing the performance of duties by the damaged police officer by putting it up, and thereby obstructing the performance of duties by the affected police officer by inserting it. In the process of inserting the right hand hand hand of the damaged police officer by inserting it, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was fluoring on the right hand of the damaged police officer.

Although the defendant's defense counsel asserts that the police officer was different in the process of the arrest after the completion of obstruction of performance of official duties, according to each statement of the damaged police officers and the defendant, the police officer's Zhthe test was used.