The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Since the facts charged and the facts charged in the instant case are identical to those of the Defendant, the instant prosecution should be dismissed.

(2) The defendant's act does not constitute "Assault" as defined by the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

Dob. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the assertion that the basic facts are the same as the disposition of notification at the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the validity corresponding to the final judgment on the payment of penalty in a case where an offender under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act was notified of the penalty by the chief of a police station on the ground that he/she committed an offense, and paid the penalty within the payment period, and thus, recognized the same as the final judgment on the payment of penalty, the act that would not be punished again is limited to the relevant offense as stated in the reason for notification of penalty and the offense recognized as identical to the offense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6858, Jun. 14, 2012). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was at the time and time of the offense committed against the police officer, etc. who returned to patrol at around 05:00 on May 25, 2019, and the relevant police officer’s act was in the vicinity of the offense and obstruction of execution of notification as prescribed in Article 36(1).