The Defendant did not have committed violence to the victim who was the cause of the above collection and sustained injury as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is a premise of a legitimate performance of official duties by a public official. As such, whether a certain performance of official duties by a public official belonging to an abstract authority is legitimate shall be determined objectively and reasonably based on the specific circumstances at the time of the act, and shall not

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do4763, Aug. 23, 2013). The Defendant asserted in the lower court that the victim’s act was not a lawful performance of official duties. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that it is difficult to deem the Defendant’s act illegal with the victim’s failure to serve on the Defendant in light of the specific circumstances at the time

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the defendant's assertion that it is not a legitimate execution of official duties is not accepted.

Furthermore, in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below as well as the statement of the victim's damage and the statement of the injury diagnosis corresponding thereto in the court below's judgment, the defendant's assertion on this part is also asserted by the defendant and the defense counsel, as stated in the facts charged.