The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant solely based on the testimony of E and J without credibility, even though the Defendant did not interfere with the performance of official duties, was unlawful. (ii) Although the Defendant did not interfere with the performance of official duties, the police officer did not refer the case to a summary judgment on the ground that he did not properly explain the facts and procedure, and did not demand explanation. As such, the content of intimidation in the facts charged cannot be deemed as the degree of causing the police officer to feel a fear, and there was no fact that the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding obstruction of business by the court below's lawfully adopted and investigated evidence, i.e., the following circumstances: (i) the victim E, at the time from the investigation agency to the court of the court below, made a concrete statement concerning the principal facts of the crime, such as the reason why the victim interfered with the victim's drinking business; (ii) the entire statement is consistent; and (iii) the statement at the investigation agency of J, which was a customer in the operation of the victim, and the court of the court of the court of the court below, are consistent and consistent with the victim's statement; and (iv) the defendant interfered with the victim's business as stated in the facts charged. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit; and (ii) the evidence adopted by the court below and the court of the court of the court below regarding obstruction of performance of business; and (iii) the defendant's complaint against the police officer in this case under the influence of alcohol in G districts around September 17, 2012.