A. Defendant 1’s mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) In regard to the damage and damage of property on July 25, 2012 of the instant case, there was a fact that the Defendant intending to cut the drainage pipe of the instant case, but the elderly Defendant did not cut the drainage pipe of the instant case due to lack of force.

B) In relation to the obstruction of the performance of official duties of this case, there was a fact that the Defendant’s act of obstruction of the performance of official duties of the police officer G, but it was difficult for the Defendant to conceal the Defendant’s neck to cut off the drainage pipe of this case by using a enormous machine. As a result, the Defendant suffered bodily injury to the Defendant’s left surface and exceeded it. As to the obstruction of the performance of official duties of this case, the Defendant’s act was used by the police officer’s assault, etc. at the time of this case, and did not interfere with the Defendant’s work, and even if the Defendant interfered with the construction work, it constitutes an act of self-defense or emergency evacuation. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges against the Defendant, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200 won.).

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the damage of property on June 21, 2012, the prosecutor 1) may fully recognize the facts that the Defendant destroyed, such as the Defendant’s tearing the right-hand part of the victim H, as stated in this part of the facts charged, by means of tearing.