The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) Violence and interference with the business of the Defendant: (a) First, the Defendant did not resist the Defendant’s fat, and did not interfere with the restaurant business by setting fating fat, and he did not interfere with the restaurant business; (b) the police officer called the Defendant’s fatch to the police station without hearing the Defendant’s change of address; and (c) attempted to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender and refuse to do so. Thus, it does not constitute legitimate performance of official duties.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won by fine) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Ex officio, the prosecutor applied for amendments to a bill of amendment to the indictment with the following changes in the facts charged in the instant case, and the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained as the case was changed by this court's permission.

B. The revised charge was found by the Defendant, on the ground that the victim G, who was a police officer belonging to the F District Unit upon receipt of a report, listened to the situation of damage as referred to in paragraph (1) above from D at the scene, and the Defendant demanded voluntary behavior on the ground that he demanded voluntary behavior. In doing so, the Defendant was humping the victim’s breath, and boomed the victim’s blap.

Accordingly, the defendant, who is a police officer belonging to the F District Unit, tried to arrest the defendant as a flagrant offender in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, was the wheels of the victim H as his hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by public officials concerning criminal investigation and reporting processing as above.

C. However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court as to the violence and obstruction of business, the Defendant is pro-Japanese.