A. Although there was a dispute between the Defendant and the police at the time of the mistake of facts, the Defendant did not use violence against the police officers, and even if the Defendant exercised the violence, it cannot be deemed that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is established only because it was an resistance to the unlawful performance of official duties. However, the court below convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. The judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Article 6(1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers provides that “If a police officer deems that a criminal act is about to be committed in front of the police officer, the police officer may issue a warning to the person concerned to prevent the criminal act, and if it is urgently needed because the act is likely to cause harm to human life and body, or grave damage to property, the police officer may restrain the act.” In order for a police officer’s measures to be deemed lawful performance of his/her duties, it can be objectively acknowledged that the act subject to criminal punishment is likely to be committed in front of the police officer, and there is a situation where the act is likely to cause harm to human life and body, or serious damage to property unless the act is avoided, and thus, it should be an imminent situation other than directly regulating the act. However, whether a police officer’s measures are legitimate should be determined based on the specific situation at the time of the measure, and it should not be determined by a pure objective criteria ex post facto and purely (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do2937, Jun. 13, 2013).