The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is that it is unlawful to catch and attract the Defendant’s arms without notifying where and where the Defendant moves, with the aim of provokinging the Defendant and threatening the Defendant.

In order to escape from the illegal performance of D's official duties, the Defendant did not have a criminal intent to inflict an injury or interfere with the performance of official duties.

The defendant's act is to defend against the illegal infringement of himself, and it is not a legitimate act that is either a party defense or a political party that does not go against social norms.

The court below found the defendant guilty. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court determined that the series of duties conducted by the injured party D, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, constituted legitimate execution of official duties as a lawful exercise of minimum coercive force (Article 100 of the Enforcement Rule of the Correctional Institution Inmates Act) against the Defendant’s disciplinary action (Article 214 subparag. 6, 14, and 17 of the Administration and Treatment of Correctional Institution Inmates Act). Considering the legitimacy of the purpose and supplement of the method, the Defendant’s act of plucking and plucking the injured party’s finger constitutes a crime of interference with the execution of official duties, and does not constitute a legitimate act that does not go against the legitimate defense against other party’s unfair infringement or social rules.

The decision was determined.

① On the day of the instant case, the victim passed ahead of the Defendant’s ward while on night duty, and the Defendant went back to the front of the Defendant’s living room on the day of the instant case, “I am going to see why you come to this Dong and come to the front of the Defendant’s living room.”

The injured party, who was judged to harm the peace in the confinement and interfere with normal execution of duties, was able to pay a more attention to the accused.