The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The administrative vicarious execution of the instant case was conducted without complying with the duty of care to the goods owned by the Defendant or ordinary execution procedures, such as the presence of police officers, without notice by the warrant, as it was based on the unlawful execution of official duties, and thus, the procedure was based on the unlawful execution of official duties.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) In light of the legal principles as to special injury, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the legitimate defense or social rules, inasmuch as the Defendant’s act was committed in a situation where illegal administrative vicarious execution was carried out by multiple removal personnel, and the Defendant’s act was committed against the victim’s bump in order to defend the present unfair infringement.

3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence sentenced by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unfasible and unfair.

2. We examine the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts ex officio prior to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.

It is reasonable to interpret that the Criminal Act separately provides for interference with the performance of official duties, apart from the interference with the performance of official duties, the purpose of punishing public officials only in cases of interference with the execution of official duties by means of violence, intimidation, or deceptive means with respect to public officials. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the act of interference with the performance of official duties by public officials cannot be deemed interference with the performance of official duties (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4166 Decided November 19, 209). According to the foregoing legal principle, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the vicarious removal of the instant case constitutes public duties of the Seocho-gu Office based on the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, not private duties of the victim.