Facts
The appellant [A.] is accused of failing to comply with a traffic instruction given by the city police officer [B.] on July 1, 2016, and lightly touching her below the knee in the process. The lower courts subsequently convicted him of violence and threat against authorities and officials. The Canton of Aargau is the owner of the cantonal road [U.] strasse, where the plants in question were located. The road superintendent [C.] , as a representative of the canton, was entitled to file a criminal complaint for property damage, as the maintenance of the plantings along the cantonal roads falls within the duties of the road superintendent. On July 1, 2016, the city police officer [B.] closed the [X.] strasse for the May Procession. When the appellant tried to drive around the barrier to reach his office on the [X.] strasse, she stopped him. Although the appellant told her that he lived on the [X.] strasse, she refused to let him through. The appellant then drove slowly forward and lightly touched the policewoman below the knee. To remove herself from the danger zone, the policewoman took a step to the side, injuring her ankle in the process.Considerations
The lower court considers the elements of violence and threat against authorities and officials to be fulfilled. Even if the police officer's traffic order may have been unlawful, the appellant should have complied with it. Only in the case of an obvious illegality of the official act, which moreover does not allow for effective legal protection, would resistance have been justified. However, this was not the case here, as the appellant was…