A. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant was a person subject to relief under Article 4(1) of the Act on the Performance of Police Officers’ Duties, and thus, (b) instead of taking appropriate protective measures by police officers D, attempted to produce the Defendant out of the district; and (c) exercised physical power in the process; (d) it is difficult to view D’s act as legitimate performance of official duties; and accordingly, (e) even if the Defendant resisted the Defendant and pushed the Defendant’s chest, it does not constitute a crime of interference with the performance of official duties.

However, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time, and was not in a situation that makes it impossible to communicate or move with it, and did not have any external signs to confirm the health condition. The Defendant also demanded the Defendant to put the patrol lane up to the patrol lane instead of protesting for physical pain, and only caused the Defendant to go against his behavior, bath, or disturbance within the patrol zone. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed as a person subject to relief under Article 4(1) of the Act on the Performance of Police Officers’ Duties.

In addition, as seen above, the Defendant was highly likely to commit a crime such as violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, interference with the performance of official duties, damage to public goods, etc. Therefore, D’s act is necessary and reasonable to prevent the crime, and is not a form of force in violation of the Police Officers’ Duties Execution Act.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (200,000 won) is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, based on the record of the instant case, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, entered a district office, demanded a police officer to lay his/her patrol road at the seat of the patrol road, rejected such demand, D, etc., and detained the Defendant from the seat of the district office.