The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act of spit spite twice on the police officer D, who entered his house before his house, rather than a public office by misunderstanding legal principles, constitutes a minor assault to the extent that the act of the Defendant is not open to the public official, and thus, constitutes the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties. Moreover, since D was arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the absence of risk of escape and destruction of evidence, this is unlawful, and the Defendant’s subsequent statement was not admissible as an illegally collected evidence, and the lower court convicted the Defendant

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio determination, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, and the prosecutor expressed that the second page of the indictment No. 10, among the facts charged in the instant case, “D shotra, shot, franch, franch, franch, franch, franch, franch, franch,” “D’ face” was changed to D’s face “D’s face,” and the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained since it was changed to D’s face due to this court’s permission.

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

B. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties of the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine includes not only the exercise of direct tangible power against public officials, but also the exercise of indirect tangible power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do662, May 12, 1998). The Defendant’s act of spiting spits, etc. two times on the face of police officers D, who shot home for the sake of public safety and maintenance of order, is directly tangible force against D’s body.