The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (guilty or misunderstanding of legal principles) shall be considered to the extent of supplement in case of documents submitted after the deadline for appeal is not timely filed.

A. Defendant B’s act cannot be deemed as an unlawful use of force in light of the circumstances at the time of the act and the intent of the Defendant. Thus, it does not constitute an assault of obstruction of performance of official duties, and Defendant B did not have the intent to interfere with performance of official duties.

B. The injury inflicted by the injured public officials K and L is merely a mere to the extent that it does not interfere with daily life, and thus does not constitute injury to a special obstruction of performance of official duties.

Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal

A. Whether the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties due to Defendant B’s act constitutes a crime of assaulting or threatening a public official who performs his/her duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established. The assault here is sufficient to exercise the force against a person, and does not necessarily mean that the person’s body is harmed. Also, as an abstract dangerous offender, there is no need to create a result of obstructing the performance of his/her duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do21537, Mar. 29, 2018). The criminal intent in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is a public official performing his/her duties, and the fact that the other party is a public official performing his/her duties, and the fact that the other party is assaulting or threatening, even if its perception is uncertain, it shall be deemed that there is so-called willful negligence, and no intent is required to interfere with the performance

In a case where the defendant does not make a confession, it is inevitable to prove indirect facts having considerable relevance with the intention due to the nature of things in a case where the defendant does not make a confession. In this case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance is close based on normal empirical rule.