The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) did not interfere with the execution of official duties of the above D by taking the arms of the police officer D, who was dispatched after receiving a report as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, or spiting them into the face of the above D, and the police officer E, who sent the above D and E, arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and did not notify the facts of the crime of obstruction of official duties or the right to appoint a defense counsel. Thus, the execution of official duties by the above police officer cannot be deemed unlawful and thus cannot be held liable for the crime of obstruction of official duties

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion that D, first of all, prices the Defendant’s lecture at the wharf of the Gu, caused the Defendant to walk and take a bath, and the police officer spited the Defendant as described in the facts charged in this case, and thus, it does not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties as an act for the purpose of setting up against illegal arrest by police officers, the lower court duly adopted and examined the evidence by the lower court, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant reported several times on November 13, 2012 that, while under the influence of alcohol at around 04:17, a person living together could not move out of the port because he did not know his lock, and the police officer D, who called the Defendant’s house, was called for as 3208 Dong-dong, Incheon Metropolitan City. D, the Defendant’s house at the seat of the Defendant, sent to the Defendant with his desire to take off the elevator, and the Defendant was able to resolve the problem with the Defendant’s desire to take out the elevator without his will.