A. The Defendant’s act does not constitute an interference with the performance of official duties by “defensive means”, since the Defendant’s act of misapprehending the legal doctrine results in faithfully performing the main duties of preventing crimes and maintaining public peace, and does not result in preventing specific performance of official duties or making it difficult to perform official duties.

The lower court recognized the establishment of a crime of interference with the execution of official duties by fraudulent means. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspension of execution, one year of observation of protection, one year of community service order 200 hours) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

(a) The above guidance in the obstruction of the performance of official duties alleged by the misunderstanding of the legal principles of the defendant refers to all acts that make the other party mistake, perceive, or land be caused in order to achieve the purpose of the act by the actor, and use the misunderstanding, angle, or site.

On the other hand, in cases where a public official makes a false request or makes a false statement or submits false explanatory materials with regard to matters to be investigated or examined the facts, even if the public official in charge has taken measures such as erroneous authorization or permission due to insufficient examination by an administrative agency, it cannot be seen as due to a fraudulent means by the applicant, and thus, it does not lead to interference with the performance of public

On the other hand, if the public official in charge of false explanatory materials submitted by the parties sufficiently examined the application, but the application was accepted because the reason for the application was not found to be false, this would not result in insufficient examination by the public official in charge, but through fraudulent means by the applicant.