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. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles (a point of interfering with the performance of official duties: not guilty part), the Assistant J, a police officer affiliated with the I police box of the State Police Station, had been performing legitimate duties for dealing with traffic accidents, such as ordering the defendant who caused the traffic accident to move his/her vehicle, etc., and the defendant did not comply with the direction of the damaged police officer in the course of performing his/her duties and expressed his/her desire to resist it, and the defendant did not comply with the direction of the damaged police officer, and was a private act of the damaged police officer irrelevant thereto.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, the defendant's act of assaulting a victimized police officer like the facts charged is deemed to have assaulted a police officer performing his duties, and the facts charged as to obstructing the performance of official duties of this case is fully found guilty.

However, the lower court found Defendant guilty of only the crime of assault on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the victimized police officer was performing his duties at the time of assault by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the performance of duties in the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, and rendered a not guilty verdict as to the obstruction of the performance of official duties

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

B. Although the requirements for the arrest of a flagrant offender were not met, the victimized police officer involved in the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) committed the Defendant with the chest of the Defendant’s wife in order to arrest the Defendant as an offender.

The defendant's act is a passive resistance to defend against the illegal arrest of the victimized police officer or to protect N, and thus, it is not illegal as it constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby committing assaulting the facts charged.