The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not abuse the misunderstanding of facts regarding the crime of violating the Animal Protection Act in the time and place specified in paragraph (1) of the facts charged, the lower court convicted this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant did not interfere with the performance of official duties by committing a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties at the time and place specified in paragraph (2) of the facts charged, and even if such facts were to exist, it constitutes self-defense committed in the course of resisting an illegal arrest. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on facts or self-defense, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The sentence of a fine of two million won imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts regarding the crime of violation of the Animal Protection Act

A. At around 20:30 on June 23, 2013, the Defendant abused a dog he raised in his dwelling maat in Suwon-gu, Busan, for about 30 minutes.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted.

C. However, the above judgment of the court below is hard to accept for the following reasons.

Since the Defendant was indicted for violating Article 46(1) and Article 8(2)1 of the Animal Protection Act, in order to be found guilty, the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the animal by using tools and drugs should be recognized. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant satise the dog that the Defendant raised at the time and place specified in paragraph (1) of the charge.