The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles (i.e., the Defendant did not have attempted to collect a telephone after being requested by the Inspector F to produce an identification card, and there is no fact that the Defendant was committed on the part of F to restrain it.

Shebly, even if the Defendant had a physical contact with F in the process of showing his or her multiple descendants, there was no intention to assault F or interfere with F’s performance of official duties.

Article 22(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the act of the criminal defendant constitutes a legitimate act permitted by social norms, which is committed in a state of interest due to the night loss.

Applicant Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

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

2. Determination

A. On April 26, 2013, around 03:40, the Defendant: (a) arrested a flagrant offender on the suspicion of assault against taxi officers E and tried to carry out the above police box with the police box; (b) sought to present his identification card to process the instant case from F, who was installed at the police box, and attempted to keep the phone operator in hand at the scene of the police box; and (c) interfered with F’s legitimate execution of duties in relation to the prevention, suppression, and investigation of the crime by assaulting the F, i.e., at one time at the inside of the inside of the F, while intending to refrain from doing so.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that, based on the evidence presented by the lower court, the Defendant committed assault to F while taking a bath and obstructed F’s legitimate execution of duties.

C. (i) The offense of obstruction of performance of official duties under Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act is established when the public official who performs official duties assaults or threatens.

The evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court are examined.