The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

나. 검사 1) 공무집행 방해의 점에 관한 법리 오해 검사가 제출한 증거들을 종합하면, 피고인이 공무집행 중이 던 경찰관 I의 왼쪽 팔을 잡아챈 것은 공무집행을 방해할 정도의 폭행에 해당한다고 할 것이므로, 피고인에 대한 이 부분 공소사실을 충분히 인정할 수 있음에도, 원심은 피고인에게 무죄를 선고 하였으니, 원심판결에는 공무집행 방해죄의 폭행의 정도에 관한 법리를 오해하여 판결에 영향을 미친 위법이 있다.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On September 17, 2015, the summary of the facts charged in this part of the charges was assaulted by the Defendant, i.e., the police officer of the Sung-nam Police Station H box called by the Defendant upon receiving a report of 112 that the Defendant assaulted G, questioning the said G about whether the Defendant inflicted damage on the said G, and then, threatening the Defendant from the back to the end, and assaulted by his hand, i.e., cutting off the left part of the said I’s left part.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the control of crimes.

2) The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds that this part of the facts charged constituted a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, assault and intimidation must be sufficient to obstruct the performance of official duties by nature. Thus, if a public official is not opened to the extent of minor degree, it does not constitute assault and intimidation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Do1783, Sept. 26, 1972; 2006Do449, Jun. 1, 2007; 2006Do9020, Mar. 16, 2007). The witness I’s evidence that seems to correspond to this part of the facts charged.