Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, and sentenced the Defendant guilty.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the obstruction of performance of official duties, the defendant drinked alcohol on the day of the instant case at “Cju shop” and used it on the floor, but the "Cju shop" owner discovered and broken the defendant, and despite the defendant's desire, the defendant committed a disturbance, the police officer was called upon upon receiving a report from the “Cju shop,” and the police officer sent to the scene at the “Cju shop,” and explained the procedure related to charges to the defendant at the request of the owner of the work. However, the police officer called to the site at the time stated that the defendant expressed a desire to the police officer and the police officer could be punished as a crime of insult, but the police officer continued to expressed his desire to the police officer, and the police officer received violence against the defendant's head as the victim, and the police officer notified the defendant of the crime of interference with the police officer's right to arrest the defendant as an unlawful act in the process of arresting the police officer.”

In light of the above facts, it constitutes legitimate execution of duties for the prevention and control of crimes under Article 6 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, which the police officer arrived at the "Cjuk" and prevented the Defendant from disturbing acts.