The fact-finding that the defendant cited misunderstanding of facts was merely for a bend, and there was no threat of enforcement officers or interference with the execution of official duties by, for instance, that he would be subject to saves, etc., and a large number of human resources were dispatched due to a mistake report at the time, and there is no causation between the defendant's act and the obstruction of performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

The sentencing of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court deemed that the Defendant’s act committed to enforcement officers, etc. at the time of the instant case constitutes intimidation to the extent that the other party feel a fear, and that there was sufficient awareness that the Defendant’s act constitutes an act of intimidation to the extent that the other party feel a fear, and that there was a suspicion of intimidation to the marina enforcement officers, thereby

① Even if the Defendant was notified in advance from G on the date of the judgment of the court below that the execution was to be carried out, the Defendant, in advance, did not comply with the execution of the surrender and set up a door at the time when it was carried out, and the execution officer, etc. did not appear to have a locked door between the execution officer, etc., and the sound was put up to the enforcement officer, etc. on the locked door. Accordingly, the execution officer, etc., given up the forced door and reported it to the police.

The Defendant may not make any compulsory question any further by an execution officer, etc. on his own act as above.