A. The legality of the performance of official duties in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties should be determined objectively and reasonably based on the specific circumstances at the time of the act.

Even if the Constitutional Court ex post rendered a decision on partial unconstitutionality of Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”), it does not affect the legality of the police officer’s execution of official duties at the time when the police officer arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender.

Therefore, the duty of arresting a person who did not comply with the dispersion order on the ground of an outdoor demonstration after sunset is lawful, and the defendant's act of causing an injury to a police officer by cutting off a police officer's shot and cutting off his face, is sufficiently recognized as the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and the crime of injury.

B. Taking into account the various circumstances of unreasonable sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (a fine of KRW 500,000) is excessively unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the acquittal portion, the Defendant, from around 19:10 on December 22, 2009 to around 20:10, 80 members of the Poverty Society, etc., and the summary of this part of the facts charged, the Defendant 2 flicked two flick cards with the contents of “the 2009-distance scambling of the homeless at a distance from 2009, scams without any discrimination with the time of destruction,” and “the C regime scambling the scambling of the deceased so as to protect the human rights of the elderly.” The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant participated in an outdoor demonstration after leaving the “the culture system of the homeless” without reporting it, and that the Seoul Regional Police Agency affiliated with the Seoul National Police Agency was trying to arrest Defendant E in response to a dispersion order, and that he could cut off the face of the victim’s 1 to G.