A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant did not have a high speech because he was unable to return home in dialogue with the public officials belonging to B as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and did not commit any assault against the above public officials, and did not intend to interfere with the execution of his duties. 2) Home affairs are not so.

Even if the defendant's act is a passive resistance to the above public officials' proposal, it constitutes a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Code.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties: (a) the purport of the crime is to recognize the fact that the other party is a public official who performs his/her duties, and that violence or intimidation is made against it; (b) its recognition is so-called “unwritten intention” even if it is uncertain; and (c) it does not require any intent to interfere with the performance of his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11381, May 24, 2012). According to the statements made by the damaged public official in an investigative agency and the on-site documentary evidence image corresponding thereto, even though the fact that the damaged public official is a public official performing the duties of the office building, it may be recognized that the Defendant committed an assault by priceing the chest part or by hand with the right snow part of the building, and thus, this part of the allegation of facts is without merit, and thus, it does not constitute a legitimate act in light of social ethics or social norms.