The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts D conceals CCTV images that can prove the Defendant’s innocence, and the prosecutor submitted only the same image materials that have taken the form of a fake course, and the lower court erred in misunderstanding of facts that found the Defendant guilty on the basis of such compiled video materials and the victim’s false testimony.

(1) In relation to the obstruction of performance of official duties, the Defendant has never made a statement, such as “I amblish tank”.

(2) With regard to refusal to leave, the accused shall leave without justifiable reason.

There shall be no person who has received the Gu.

(3) With respect to the intrusion of a building and damage to public goods, the Defendant did not have the Defendant opened a door in a normal way and opened a door to one labor improvement instruction and office freely accessible, and had the entrance door be opened and operated by force.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. (1) On May 15, 2013, the Defendant obstructed the labor inspector’s legitimate performance of duties by threatening the labor inspector F who taken the Defendant’s actions to “I would am dead tank.” At the 1st office and office of the D 6th work improvement instruction of the D 6th floor located in C from around 17:00 to 18:45, regarding the perusal of the records of the case he accused, the Defendant obstructed the labor inspector’s legitimate performance of duties by threatening the labor inspector F who taken the Defendant’s actions.

(2) On May 15, 2013, the Defendant, at around 23:00, has met the relevant documents by using the above labor improvement guidance 1 and the opening entrance of the office, until the investigator in charge of the case he/she filed a complaint, and the Defendant’s indictment of the H of the safety management head of the G Building, in the facts of the indictment, leaves from H of the safety management head of the G building and the building manager K.

Although the Gu was stated as having received the Gu, the lower court, contrary to the written indictment, in light of the contents of the pleading, etc., shall withdraw from the above H only.

Criminal facts that have been received by the Gu.