All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was unaware of the fact that E was a police officer in light of the uniforms, etc. of E at the time of the instant case.

Rather, the Defendant, at the time, tried to see that E and F are wraped, and assaulted E, a police officer, did not interfere with the execution of duties regarding the arrest of a flagrant offender.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the obstruction of performance of official duties.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (a 3 million won suspended sentence) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, and the first instance court’s judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the first instance court witness in light of the evidence duly examined in the first instance court

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court, or in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings in the appellate trial, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). However, even if the Defendant was in the public interest service at the time of the instant case, including the circumstance that the Defendant applied for the recruitment examination for local public officials after the instant case, and the defense counsel took full account of various circumstances clearly stated in the reasons for appeal, the lower court’s judgment E and G.