The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses of the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no evidence to acknowledge the causal relationship between the Defendant’s act by mistake of fact and the injury of the victim D, who is the police officer (hereinafter “victim”).

Even if the causal relation is recognized, the Defendant did not have intention to commit the instant injury and interference with the execution of official duties, and the victim’s act cannot be deemed as legitimate execution of official duties. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be established to interfere with the execution of official duties.

B. Although a misapprehension of the legal doctrine is recognized as an act of inflicting an injury on the defendant or obstructing the performance of official duties, it constitutes (i) the defense of a political party resisting against an unlawful performance of official duties or excessive defense, and (ii) the act to avoid the present danger to the defendant's body constitutes an emergency escape or erroneous escape.

(c)

At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was physically and mentally deprived of his ability to discern things or make decisions.

(d)

The punishment of the court below (the punishment of KRW 5 million, the suspended sentence) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the Defendant could sufficiently be recognized that the Defendant interfered with the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties with intent and at the same time sustained injury to the victim. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without

A. At the time of the instant crime, the victim consistently testified to the effect that “F and E initially observed the Defendant at the time of the instant crime was stated to the police that “The Defendant was written on the roadside and carried in possession around the street, and reported to the police.” The victim, etc., who called the victim, expressed to the effect that “the police officer, etc., who was faced with the Defendant, brought the Defendant into the alley and alley, boomed the Defendant, and expressed to the police, “scam” (295, 307 pages of the trial record), and that he was the victim’s police officer.