The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 800,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that H was a public official, and he was faced with the diameter of H during the period of punishment for his scam, and was scambling, and there was no intentional scam with H’s scam on one occasion.

(Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties) In addition, chemical powder is broken by falling off the floor of the defendant's body by contacting the body of the defendant's body through the course of the practical ditch, and there is no fact that the defendant has intentionally broken the fire that had already been set up only by supporting the power of the fire that had already been set.

(A) The judgment of the court below that found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts as to the argument that H was unaware of the fact that H was a public official, the court below rejected the above argument in detail with the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel in the judgment of the court below under the title “determination on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel” under the title “judgment on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.” In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and there is no illegality affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, according to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the judgment of the court below as to the assertion that the defendant did not intentionally assault H, such as the statement of G at the court below and the trial court, and the evidence duly adopted and examined, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant intentionally committed an assault, such as making the defendant

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3 It is determined that the allegation that there is no string of fire extinguishings by the outbreak of one minute at the time of the instant case.