The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that acquitted the police officer who caused misunderstanding of facts on this part of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, since it is legitimate to arrest the defendant as a legitimate performance of official duties, and assaulted by the defendant, such as taking the police officer's seat on the part of the police officer, thereby obstructing the legitimate performance of duties concerning the arrest of

B. Although the facts charged in the instant case relate to one crime of interference with the performance of official duties, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that judged a part of the facts charged and acquitted a part of the remainder of the facts charged in the disposition, thereby adversely affecting the judgment on the number of crimes.

(c)

The sentence of the court below against the illegal defendant in sentencing (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the community service work of 120 hours) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The facts charged as to obstructing the execution of official duties of this case are as follows.

B. The following facts are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original judgment as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine.

① Upon receipt of 112 reports that a damaged police officer was sent to the second floor of the drinking house, the police officer called to the scene of 22:51 and sought statements from witnesses and the accused for one hour, and identified the situation where the vehicles parked in the vacant lot were damaged by the glass disease of the accused.

(2) If the owner of a motor vehicle is confirmed, the damaged police officer shall re-examine the motor vehicle and solicits the defendant to return home, but the defendant "whether or not the defendant has to go home."

”며 피해 경찰관 앞에 담배 불똥을 튕기자 이러한 행동이 공무집행 방해죄가 될 수 있음을 경고 하였다.

③ The 112 Reporter attempted to photograph the Defendant and the victimized police officer using a cell phone image. Accordingly, the Defendant sent a threat to the reporter, and the police officer who caused defect obstructed the Defendant.

(4)