The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) D was responsible for the duties of an auditor of the C market occupant representative meeting, the establishment of which is null and void, and did not take charge of the electric safety inspection at the time and place specified in the facts charged, and there was no employees affiliated to E at the same time and place, and there was no employee affiliated to E, and therefore there was no electric safety

2) Since the Defendant recognized that he assaulted D, etc. in a separate criminal case at the time and place stated in the facts charged, he was only aware of the intention of assault at that time and did not have an intention to interfere with the electrical safety inspection work.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On September 20, 2016, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s duty to conduct the safety inspection of the electricity of the victim for about one hour, by blocking the entrance door of the electric power distribution team or by drawing the flaps around the entrance, from preventing the auditor D and the victim employed by the auditor of the C market occupant representative meeting from conducting the safety inspection of electricity at around the sixth-story electric power distribution team of the Seoul Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C market, at around 17:30.

B. 1) We examine whether D and E employed by them are conducting the electrical safety inspection at the time and place specified in the facts charged.

The evidence corresponding thereto is ① D’s investigative agency and the court below’s legal statement (hereinafter “Evidence”), ② official questioning in E’s name (including evidence Nos. 7, 30 through 35, hereinafter “Second evidence”).

2) First, evidence is difficult to believe in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, including (i) the witness I’s legal statement, (ii) the reproduction of the USB video (Evidence No. 8) held in the party trial, and (iii) the non-fluence against D (Evidence No. 7, 61, 64 of the investigation record) as a result of the reproduction of the USB video (Evidence No. 8) conducted in the party trial:

The defendant is consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the first instance.