The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The term “public official” as referred to in the Criminal Act means a person who is engaged in the affairs of the State, local government, or public corporation equivalent thereto, on the basis of Acts and subordinate statutes, and whose contents of labor are not limited to a simple mechanical

(2) According to the records, the court concluded a labor contract for the purpose of taking charge of the safety management of office buildings and guidance for civil petitioners by designating a place of work as H management support department and receiving remuneration therefor; ② the fact that a labor contract was concluded for the purpose of taking charge of the safety management of office buildings and guidance for civil petitioners based on the above labor contract, ③ the fact that a fixed-term worker is in charge of the safety management of office buildings and guidance for civil petitioners, and ③ the fact that a public official is not a public official, but a public official is admitted to the National Pension Service.

④ Although the H Directive provides for the management and operation of indefinite contract workers and fixed-term workers, it appears that the content of the H’s bylaws is merely a determination of general matters concerning employment, working conditions, and personnel affairs, including retirement, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the J has engaged in the said affairs based on the legal basis.

Examining these circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the J, which merely takes charge of the safety management of office buildings and guidance for civil petitioners, as a fixed-term worker who entered into a H chairman and a labor contract, is difficult to view as a public official under the Criminal Act who is engaged in

3. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the obstruction of performance of official duties solely on the ground that the lower court, as a part-time worker, was in charge of the operation support of H and the safety management of H’s office buildings and civil petitioners’ guidance.