A. The Defendant of mistake of facts merely supported a mobile phone by a shot to prevent the F slope from photographing a mobile phone with a view to two hand, and did not account for the F slope.

B. In light of the legal principle, F slope taken the Defendant’s image as a Handphone against the Defendant’s will even in a situation where the Defendant was arrested as an offender in the act of damaging public goods and there is no need to collect evidence.

Such F slope behavior can not be seen as a legitimate execution of official duties protected by the obstruction of performance of official duties.

The Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act, which destroyed the entrance door of the said district in order to rescue E in a state of illegal confinement in the D District Unit of the Seoul Gangnam Police Station, and thereby destroyed the entrance door of the said district.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below's determination of guilty of the facts charged is just and there is no error of law as to misconception of facts.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of legal principles, although the defendant was arrested as an offender in the act of damaging public goods and supported the lock, the defendant was able to leave the lock door of the above district unit immediately before that district and was set up within the district unit, and resisted to the police's arrest, and the police continued to take a bath for the purpose of collecting evidence at the scene of the crime, since the F slope had taken the image of the defendant for the purpose of collecting evidence at the scene of the crime, it is reasonable to view that the crime of damaging public goods in this case is a legitimate official duty.