A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The police officer’s obstruction of performance of official duties crackdowns the defendant on the ground of safety appearance and demands the signature of the defendant in issuing a notice for payment of a penalty. However, the police officer issued a notice for payment of a penalty without opening it, and received the signature from the defendant. Thus, the above act of the defendant cannot be deemed as violence or intimidation that could hinder the police officer’s performance of duties. Furthermore, the police officer issued a notice for payment of a penalty to the defendant, and the defendant did not receive the left signal of the police officer due to Obaba, and the defendant contacted the police officer’s qui. Even if the above facts are acknowledged, since the police officer’s performance of duties as to a notice for payment of a penalty was completed, it cannot be deemed that the police officer interfered with the police officer’s performance of duties as to traffic control. 2) Since the insulting police officer’s act was committed after the police officer’s performance of duties as to a notice for payment of a penalty, it cannot be deemed that the police officer did not interfere with the police officer’s’s duty.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant: (a) around April 24, 2013, at around 09:15, the Defendant was under control from the slopeF belonging to the Seopopopo Police Station E District E District on the ground of the unfortuning of safety; (b) the police officer, who was dispatched, prepared a report on detection of the offender and a notice for payment of penalty without being considered by J.