All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) When misunderstanding of facts police officers take the Defendant under the apartment stairs with breathing a ebbbbbbb, Defendant 1 merely did an act of assault, such as the charge of obstruction of performance of official duties, which was sentenced by the lower court on the Defendant’s unfair sentencing (2.0 million won of a fine).

B. In light of the initial statement made by the police of the public prosecutor D, the court below acquitted the defendant on the charge of non-compliance with the removal from the charges of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, in particular, in light of the consistent and specific statements and photographs in F’s investigative agency and court of the lower court, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed an assault against F police officers F who perform legitimate official duties, such as the facts charged in the instant case’s obstruction of performance of official duties, and such assault cannot be said to be a passive defensive act, such as the Defendant’s defense.

In addition, in light of such facts acknowledged, the above act of assault by the defendant cannot be deemed as a legitimate act which is reasonable by social norms or a self-defense act which is socially reasonable.

(B) Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3000 Decided September 26, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 96Do979 Decided May 28, 1996, Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 Decided June 25, 2004, etc.)

The summary of the facts charged 1 on June 23, 2013 by the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts is that the defendant, at around 01:30 on June 23, 2013, under the influence of alcohol in the house of the victim D located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu, the defendant expressed the victim's desire to and threatened the victim and received a request for a change from the victim. The defendant did not comply with