The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) Since the police officer’s non-explosive questioning at the time of the instant case is unlawful, obstructing the performance of official duties

In other words, at the time of the case, the defendant met with female toilets and opened them as male toilets, and opened several times to open the rest, and there was a need for relief measures, not for the police officers' non-explosion but for the police officers' non-explosion.

(2) The Defendant’s act does not constitute a degree of obstructing the performance of official duties, and the Defendant did not have any awareness of obstructing performance of official duties.

(3) The police officer’s arrest of the defendant was unlawful since the summary of the crime necessary for the arrest of the defendant in the act of committing an offense, the reason for arrest, and the notification of the right to appoint

B. At the time of committing the instant crime of defectiveness, the Defendant was in a state of defectiveness and injury.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is made only when a public official’s performance of official duties is legitimate. Here, legitimate performance of official duties refers to not only where the act belongs to the abstract authority of the public official, but also where the act satisfies the legal requirements and methods concerning specific performance of official duties.

In full view of the purpose, contents, structure, etc. of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, determination of whether a police officer falls under a person subject to questioning under Article 3 (1) of the same Act shall be made based on objective and reasonable criteria as well as the specific circumstances at the time of questioning, based on the information and professional knowledge, etc. obtained in advance. However, it cannot be said that a police officer subject to questioning is required to be suspected of having been arrested or detained under the Criminal Procedure Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Do13999 Decided February 27, 2014, etc.).