The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the victim of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles requested voluntary submission of the goods sold by the defendant without going through lawful procedures, the act cannot be deemed as a legitimate execution of official duties, the crime of obstructing performance of official duties is not committed against the defendant

In the process of requesting the victim to leave, injury also occurred by the victim itself through the establishment and use of vady.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which pronounced the defendant guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the assertion of obstruction of performance of official duties is a special judicial police officer designated by the head of the competent prosecutor under Article 5, Article 38-2 of the Act on the Persons Performing the Duties of Judicial Police Officials and the Scope of their Duties, and a person who performs the duty of regulating crimes against unfair competition, such as copying of the product form as provided by Article 2, subparagraph 1 (i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.

On the other hand, when the Special Judicial Police Officers consider it necessary for the investigation under Article 5(1) of the Rules on the Business of Special Judicial Police Officers, they should investigate the actual situation at the scene of the crime or at other places. Thus, the act of the victim who was informed of the unfair competition act under Article 2(1)(i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and conducted a provisional investigation at the skiing shop operated by the defendant to confirm it constitutes legitimate execution of duties.

After the victim taken photographs of a product suspected as a product that imitates the form of the product produced by another person, the defendant requested the voluntary submission of the product, but the defendant tried to refuse it and discard it at will.