Defendant

A person who is punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles does not constitute a public official who is the object of the obstruction of performance of official duties as a secretary of the execution office.

In addition, the enforcement officer was not at the site at the time of the compulsory execution of this case, and D was independently executed, and during that process, D did not show the defendant's identification card well, and thus, the compulsory execution procedure of this case is unlawful.

Therefore, the defendant's act of assaulting D does not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment for a term of August suspension, two years of community service order, 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In the first instance trial, the prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with the entry of “A. modified charges” as stated in Section 3 below, and since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still meaningful within the scope related to the changed facts charged, and it will be examined below.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. On November 23, 2015, around 07:35, the revised Defendant committed assault against the foregoing D, in order to execute a seizure by the original copy of the seizure of FF vehicles of the Busan District Court against the Defendant’s EF vehicle in front of the Busan Northern District Court execution officer I and the executive office D, etc., in order to execute the seizure of the Defendant’s EF vehicle in front of the Busan Northern District Court’s Busan Northern District Court’s execution officer and the execution officer’s office. As such, the Defendant committed assault to the said D, such as flabing fla