The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. On October 7, 2019, the deadline for submitting a statement of grounds for appeal, the Defendant filed a statement of grounds for appeal on October 7, 2019, in which a mistake of facts is based on the grounds for appeal.

On February 14, 2020, the state appointed defense counsel served a written notification of the receipt of the trial records, and argued that the grounds for appeal are erroneous facts and unfair sentencing through the defense counsel's written opinion on April 28, 2020, which was subsequent to the deadline for submission of the grounds for appeal.

Therefore, an unreasonable sentencing newly asserted after the deadline for submitting an appeal can not be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.

The defendant was found to have set the top door door of patrol vehicles on which two police officers on board who called up and return to the scene as a problem of the defendant's taxi charges, and left the front door on which police officers are seated, but there was no intention of obstruction of performance of official duties, so the defendant did not have intention of obstruction of performance of official duties.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the grounds for appeal, the lower court fully recognizes the fact that the Defendant, who is a public official, exercised force to the extent that it could interfere with the performance of official duties, and that the Defendant had awareness thereof.

The defendant's assertion that he did not have intention to commit violence is without merit.

3. Ex officio determination

A. The appellate court may ex officio decide on the grounds that affect the judgment, even if the grounds for appeal are not included in the grounds for appeal, and thus, if the defendant appealed only on the grounds of mistake of facts, it may ex officio reverse the judgment of the first instance on the grounds of unfair sentencing and determine

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Do1021 delivered on September 11, 1990, etc.). B.

It does not recognize all crimes such as the defendant's assertion that there was no intention of obstruction of performance of official duties.

In order to prevent police officers who have been duly performing their duties from the departure of a vehicle on board, the defendant has interfered with the performance of official duties.