A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) As to the obstruction of business operation, the Defendant was placed a front door to get a taxi of the victim C driver. However, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and refused boarding on the road when the Defendant intending to get a taxi together with the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant was placed a front door to prevent the victim from refusing boarding. However, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s taxi business. 2) As to the obstruction of business operation, the Defendant did not assault police officers, and the Defendant’s arrest of the Defendant who did not interfere with the taxi business as an flagrant offender constitutes an unlawful performance of official duties, and even if the Defendant exercised physical force, such as tearing fats by the police officer during the process of resisting such unlawful performance of official duties, the crime of obstruction of business operation is not established.

B. The sentence of a fine of one million won imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the allegation of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is as follows. ① The victim seems to have not refused the boarding of the defendant on the ground that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and the defendant also stated that the defendant was unable to take the defendant because he had to take a call from the victim, and ② the defendant argued that the victim was driving a taxi on the cab and led about about 2 to 30 meters by driving the cab without a chief door, but the police officer was in receipt of a report. The defendant at the time when the police officer arrived at the scene.