A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. In relation to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1), the defendant committed the act of this case in order to prevent the danger of accidents because the new parts were likely to be in danger of accidents due to the operation of ready-mixed vehicles. Thus, the defendant did not have intention to obstruct the business, ② the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a threat of force in interfering with the defendant's business, and ③ the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a risk of causing any trouble to the victim's business affairs. Thus, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant about the obstruction of business.

(2) With regard to the obstruction of performance of official duties and injury, ① the Defendant did not use the F’s left bucks with bucks, or did not use the F’s 5 double water pelle pelle pelle pelle pelle pelle pelle pelle pelle pelle pelle on the right side at the time of the decline of drinking, and ② the Defendant’s act of movement to the Defendant by the police officer’s Defendant did not meet the requirements for administrative immediate enforcement under Article 6 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers because he did not perform official duties in an inappropriate manner without satisfying the requirements for administrative immediate enforcement under Article 6 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers. Thus, even if the Defendant’s household carried out the 5 double water pelle pelle pelle pelle pelle pelle to the right side, it did not constitute a crime of obstruction of official duties or constitutes self-defense

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

In the facts charged against the defendant for the first time, the prosecutor "at the same time interferes with the legitimate execution of duties of the policeman F," and "the prevention and suppression of crimes by police officers F, and other public peace and maintenance of order."