The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a conflict between misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with C, there was no use of force to suppress the victim's free will.

The behavior of the defendant who escaped from work place is a justifiable act when it is unclear whether the victim has submitted the leave system regularly.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the reasons for ex officio appeal, the records of this case revealed that, on June 2, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on March 6, 2018 by obstructing the performance of official duties in the Seoul Northern District Court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 6, 2018. As such, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties and the instant crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, which became final and conclusive, are concurrent crimes of the group after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, shall be determined after examining whether the punishment is mitigated or exempted, taking into account equity with the case where the judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. First, we examine whether the Defendant’s behavior constitutes “exercise of force.”

1) Considering the difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance trial and the appellate trial based on the spirit of substantial direct deliberation, the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous in its determination as to the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court witness in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial.

The credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial, in full view of the results of the first examination of evidence and the results of the additional examination of evidence until the closing of the appellate trial.