All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 사실 오인 및 법리 오해( 피고인) (1) 업무 방해죄와 관련하여, 피고인이 피해자 E의 목을 잡아 밀치고 손목을 꺽 는 등의 행위를 한 사실이 없다.

(2) As to the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, the arrest of the Defendant in the act of committing an offense cannot be deemed a lawful performance of official duties.

Therefore, the defendant's act of resistance constitutes the defense of a political party, and such act also constitutes violence of obstruction of the execution of official duties, because it is merely passive to resist.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too heavy or (six months of imprisonment) and is so unhued as (the prosecutor).

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) based on each evidence, such as the credibility victim E’s statement, etc., the Defendant sufficiently constituted a crime of interference with duties and obstruction of performance of official duties, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the

The reasoning of the judgment below is closely examined by comparing the reasoning of the judgment below with records, and considering the following circumstances admitted by the evidence, the defendant's act of obstructing the performance of duties constitutes a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties. The arrest of a flagrant offender on such ground constitutes a crime of obstructing the performance of duties by the defendant.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts alleged by the defendant or misunderstanding the legal principles.

(1) The defendant is also deemed to have flabbbling with victim E at the police station.

A statement is made (34 pages of investigation records) and it is contrary to the allegations after the victim E does not have any flapsing.

(2) An employee shall commit acts interfering with the duties of the accused.