A. Defendants A, misunderstanding the facts, or misunderstanding the legal principles, Defendant A: (a) reported that N, a person on the part of the labor and management division of the J, was assaulted by the people on the part of the company, but the police officers did not take any measure; (b) was exempted from the Defendant L’s mother and her hand by using a passive indication in order to resisting that the police officers did not take any measure; (c) without complying with the U.S. principle, Defendant A’s head was sealed by Defendant A without complying with the procedure of arresting the offender as a current offender, as it goes beyond the reasonableness of arrest, and thus, it is not a legitimate execution of official duties, and thus, constitutes a crime of interference with the execution of official

Defendant

B, C does not constitute a crime of interference with the execution of official duties, as the parts of L are cut off with arms or flaps in order to resist the above L's illegal execution of official duties.

Even if the illegal execution of official duties is not illegal, since L did not recognize that L's arrest act was legitimate, there is no intention to obstruct the execution of official duties, and it constitutes legitimate defense, legitimate act, or excessive defense.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (Defendant A and B: each fine of KRW 5 million, and Defendant C: KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, the above assertion is identical to that in the original trial, and the court below rejected the assertion in detail, and recognized the Defendants as constituting the elements of obstruction of performance of official duties, and found the Defendants guilty on the grounds that it does not constitute legitimate defense, legitimate act, etc.

A thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records of this case is just, and the above judgment of the court below is erroneous, and there is a misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant.