All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,500,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant is not a person subject to protection observation, and thus, the Defendant’s act does not constitute an interference with the performance of official duties, as it is unlawful in the performance of official duties by the protection observation officer.

2) The Defendant of the lower judgment No. 2 did not err by misapprehending the Victim F, and did not inflict any injury on the Victim F.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 5 months, and the second instance court: the fine of 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The appellate court, ex officio, decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case against the defendant by the lower court.

Since each crime of the judgment below is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a single punishment shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment for which concurrent crimes are aggravated by judgment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, all judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, there are reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even if the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, it is examined.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment of the Daejeon District Court on November 19, 2014 (Joint 2014 High Court 206, 2014, 2014, 6, 6) ordering a suspended sentence of two years and observation of protection for one year by obstructing the performance of official duties, etc., and the prosecutor appealed, but the Prosecutor appealed, but the Prosecutor dismissed the Prosecutor’s appeal on January 30, 2015 (Joint 20, No. 20, 2014, 2015). The Defendant and the Prosecutor did not appeal all, and on February 7, 2015 [Joint 30, 2014 High Court 206, 2014 High Court 206, 2014 High Court 2014, 6, 6014 (Joint ] The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The court below's judgment of the second instance is legitimate.