The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant requested solitary confinement in the detention house but refused, thereby expanding the net monitor to the floor, leaving escape, and leaving a prison officer B with whom he gets himself. This is merely a mere use of force.

There was no perception that the defendant would be obstruction of performance of official duties.

B. Meritorious of legal principles, damage to public goods and attempted damage to public goods are related to the crime of connection as an element of connection.

The Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder.

C. Unreasonable sentencing

2. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts about the obstruction of performance of official duties, the assault in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties as stipulated in Article 136 of the Criminal Act refers to an act of exercising tangible power against the public official who performs official duties, and such assault includes directly

(See Supreme Court Decision 81Do326 delivered on March 24, 1981). In light of the above legal principles, the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the trial court in light of the above, and in particular, CCTV images, it is recognized that the defendant exceeded the exercise of simple power and committed an act of assault constituting the element of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and that there was an awareness that such an act was committed. Thus, the court below's judgment convicting the defendant of the charges of obstruction of official duties of this case is just, and there

Therefore, the defendant's argument disputing this cannot be accepted.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the damage of goods for public use, in the case where the defendant damaged one computer monitor, which is a public object, in the same opportunity, and other monitors were collected, but such intent has not been achieved and attempted, the above act of the defendant is close at the time and place below the criminal defendant's single and continuous criminal intent.