Among them, the part on special obstruction of performance of official duties is reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

A. The video files recorded in CDs as evidence by the prosecutor to the point of interference with business (hereinafter “the copy of the instant case”) are admissible as evidence by copying the video files recorded by police officers using the camping cams at the time of the instant case as they were in the original form, and thus, the Defendant constitutes the crime of interference with business.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant's act of obstructing the execution of administrative vicarious execution as stated in the facts charged is recognized. The defendant can be deemed to obstruct the legitimate execution of official duties by multiple force by combining the opposing performers of administrative vicarious execution at the time. Thus, the defendant's act satisfies the elements of the crime of obstruction of performance of special duties.

2. Determination

A. Of the evidence regarding interference with business, the court below held that in the case of the copy of this case and documentary evidence photographs, it is insufficient to recognize that the original, which was taken at the time of the defendant's act, copied the contents of the original without any artificial adaptation, such as compilation, etc. in the process of creating the copy of each CD, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence. Also, the photographs that cut up the above copy as a derivative evidence are not admissible as evidence. ② The statement and damaged matters in the preparation of NN are prepared uniformly with the same contents and form as to similar cases, and they are highly low probative value as evidence to prove the defendant's specific act. ③ The witness AO and AP's each legal statement are also made by a police officer or a police officer who taken the original image on the date on which they were recorded as recorded in the facts charged, making a CD in the CD or carried out a photograph by photographing it, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, considering that there is no independent evidence value as a witness's statement as a direct witness to the facts charged.