The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. In fact, the Defendant did not commit assault to the employees of the Gu office among Seoul Metropolitan Government, such as breathing, or breathing flaps, etc.

B. The sentence of first deliberation (6 months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service) on the sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In the first instance trial, the prosecutor held that the facts charged regarding the obstruction of the existing official duties among the facts charged in the instant case should be kept as the primary facts charged, and the name of the offense in the first instance shall be “Interference with Business”, and the applicable legal provision shall read as “Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act”, and applied for the amendment of indictment adding the ancillary facts charged as follows, and the subject of the judgment was added by this court upon permission.

As seen below, this Court found the Defendant not guilty of the primary facts charged and found the Defendant guilty of the primary facts charged, so the part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance could no longer be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

[Additional Facts of Preliminary Indictment] The Defendant, at around October 21, 2014, voluntarily maintained on the front road of the Dong-dong located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, about 45 (Sho Dong-dong), where F, public officials of Jung-gu, Seoul, and official seal G, etc., who are public officials of Jung-gu, Seoul, and public officials of Jung-gu, Seoul, over the illegal street in the vicinity of the Dong-gu, when controlling

If the voluntary maintenance is not conducted, I shall compulsorily remove the old occupation.

When notifying the removal of the street shop, “I” and “I am this dog, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling, I ambling,” and interfere with the victim G’s business concerning the crackdown on illegal street occupation by force by assaulting the above G.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ①., the following circumstances.