The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Scope of trial after remand;

A. On October 8, 2014, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of interfering with the performance of official duties among the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 2 million, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty of interference with general traffic.

On the other hand, the defendant appealed each on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing with respect to interference with the performance of official duties, which is the part of conviction, and misunderstanding of facts about interference with general traffic, which is the part of innocence,

2) On February 13, 2015, the trial prior to remand dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal as to the acquittal portion, and received an appeal as to the Defendant’s unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment of the court below reversed the conviction portion among the judgment below and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of one million won.

On this issue, only the defendant appealed against the obstruction of the performance of official duties, which is the part of conviction.

3) On January 28, 2016, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction part of the judgment prior to remand, on the ground that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on arrest of flagrant offenders and obstruction of performance of official duties, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and remanded this part to the court of first instance.

B. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance prior to the remanding the scope of the trial before the remanding the case was separated and finalized as the prosecutor did not appeal.

Therefore, the scope of trial after remand is limited to the obstruction of the execution of official duties among the facts charged in this case.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the part obstructing the performance of official duties, which is the scope of deliberation per party after remanding);

A. Defendant 1) The mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles had already been organized when the Defendant arrived at the site of this case at the time, and the Defendant merely resisted the police at the time of delivery by the police. As such, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and the police did not receive the notification of the non-refluence principle at the time of arrest.