The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The following circumstances, i.e., the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (as to interference with the performance of official duties) revealed by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, i.e., the J and K made a statement to the effect that the Defendant corresponds to this part of the facts charged at the police (in the court of the court of the court below, the Defendant made a talk about gasoline, which is the same as that of the Defendant, and that the specific content is not well memory, and that K made a statement to the effect that “it did not feel a threat to the Defendant’s speech at the time,” and K made a somewhat passive change compared to the statement at each police station, but the contents of the statement at each court of the court of the court below at the J and K were somewhat passively changed, but the statement at each police station at each court of the court below at each time at each time at each time at each time at each time at each time at each time at the court below at each level at each level at the court and the possibility of contamination is less accurate and contaminated).

In full view of the fact that it is confirmed as the phrase, this part of the facts charged is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on obstruction of performance of official duties, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts (1) The facts charged C and the Defendant are civil petitioners who visited the Ganpo Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Agency I in connection with the permission for use of harbor facilities in the quantities of the North Korea Port in Yeongdeungpo-si, and the J is a person in charge related to the permission for use applied by the Defendant to the I and his/her employees.

On July 20, 2016, the defendant and C filed an application for permission of port facilities with I and C offices of 130 as the unification of Sinpo regional fisheries offices around 15 July 20, 2016.