The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not deal with civil petitions related to the illegal extension of a water skiing ground building, and visited the fact of planning by the Yangyang-gun Office. At that place, he was the consignee and did not interfere with the public official’s performance of duties.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, since it was found guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. The fine of one million won, which the court below sentenced to the defendant, is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, found that the Defendant was asked on the upper part of D’s face or at least the upper part of D’s body part, and based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, it appears that the Defendant spreaded a coffee on the table, as alleged by the Defendant.

Even if so, there was a perception or expectation as to the fact that coffee may spread to D due to dolusent behavior at least.

It is sufficient to recognize that a crime of interference with the performance of official duties is established by assault or intimidation against a public official who performs his duties, and it does not require the specific result of interference with the performance of his duties. Thus, the judgment of the court below that a crime of interference with the performance of official duties constitutes a crime of interference with the execution of official duties as long as he assaulted D who was a public official in the process of performing the duties of interview with a civil petitioner at the time of the crime of this case, compared with the records of the

B. The Defendant did not properly treat the civil petition filed by himself/herself regarding the wrongful argument of sentencing.

The crime of this case shall be committed in the course of subsection (1).