All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

No. 1 of the seized evidence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to a mistake of facts 1), there is no fact that the Defendant paid a large amount of about 5 minutes to 10 minutes, or that there was no room to let the customer go against the disturbance as stated in the facts charged. 2) With regard to the fact of obstruction of performance of special duties, the Defendant was in possession of the knife on the day of the instant case, and the police officer was able to have the knife the knife on the day of the instant case, and there was no behavior or intimidation that the police officer seems to be detrimental to the police officer by using the knife.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of ex officio determination, the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance were rendered against the defendant, and the defendant filed an appeal against them, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals cases. Since the crimes of the court of first and second instance against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment shall be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, each of the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in relation to the obstruction of business, in particular, according to the witness C’s legal statement of the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with business by avoiding disturbance about about 40 minutes as stated in the facts charged.

B. (1) In relation to the charge of obstruction of performance of special duties, intimidation means an act of notifying harm and injury to the other party for the purpose of causing fear (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do1204, Dec. 26, 1989).2), the court below legitimately adopted it.