The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no fact that the Defendant did not assault the victim E, and there is no fact that the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s performance of official duties.

B. The sentencing of the first instance court on the unfair sentencing (the fine of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant pusheded or pusheded the victim E at the time and place of the judgment of the first instance court in the process of wrapping the victim with the victim E, and further, the defendant and the victim enclosed the defendant and the victim at the same time and in the process of carrying out official duties to prevent and maintain order from committing the crime along with his/her fees, and arrest the victim in the act of violence against the defendant on the ground of the victim's use of violence, etc., and thereby obstructing the police officer's performance of his/her official duties. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, there seems to be circumstances considering the circumstance and motive leading up to the defendant in this case. The extent of the defendant's use of force against the victim is not significant compared to the degree of violence brought up by the victim, and the damage suffered by the defendant seems to be minor in light of its mode and method, etc. The defendant's use of force against the victim's victim is not significant, and the defendant's use of force against the defendant's performance of official duties is not severe in light of his form and method, etc., although the defendant is dissatisfied with the facts of the crime, although he is dissatisfied with the facts of the crime, he appears to have followed his act and against himself, and basically, he seems to have followed his act after about 25 years and lived without a previous conviction for about 21 years, and other records are shown in the records.