Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

However, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles on the grounds that police officers E, who were returning home after the investigation was completed at the district zone at the time of voluntary movement, prevented the Defendant from leaving the road by leaving the Defendant and leaving the Defendant, and thus, the obstruction of performance of official duties is not committed against the Defendant as long as the Defendant failed to meet the lawful requirements for the execution of official duties. 2) While the statement of grounds for appeal directly prepared by the Defendant does not contain any explicit grounds for appeal, in light of the overall purport of the above grounds for appeal and the purport of the Defendant’s trial statement at the trial court (the part on which the Defendant sought a preference and preference, separate from whether the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is established, etc.), it can be deemed that the Defendant also claims an unfair sentencing. Accordingly, the decision is also made.

(1) The court below's decision on the grounds that the defendant's appeal may not be accepted as the grounds for appeal. In this case, the court below's decision on the ex officio sentencing is possible, and there is no difference in its conclusion. The court below's decision on the punishment of three million won is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine reveals that, at the time of the instant case, E did not leave the Defendant, and rather, E did not leave the Defendant in the process of inducing the Defendant to pay the Defendant’s agency fee and return to the Republic of Korea, the lower court may recognize the fact that the Defendant left the Defendant, and that he was at least twice the chest part of E’s chest part. (2) The lower court’s judgment was based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant only confirmed the identity of the Defendant, which was not a regular survey within the district area at the time, and even at the time when the building was