The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act among the cases of 2018 Go-Ma2825, a vehicle driven by the Defendant is owned by the pre-Divorce P, and the Defendant is not in custody after P after divorce, and the Defendant is not a person entitled to use the above vehicle, and the Defendant does not constitute “motor vehicle owner” under Article 46(2)2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Although the Defendant had a dispute with another nursing at the time of the instant case (the point of obstruction of performance of duties) with regard to the instant case (the point of obstruction of performance of duties), the Defendant did not have any particular disturbance at the time of arrival of the police officer, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed any act that inflicts any harm on another person’s life or body or that may inflict any serious damage on property.

Therefore, a police officer's act of carrying a defendant and carrying on an elevator cannot be viewed as a legitimate execution of duty permitted as a restraint act under Article 6 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged that the above act by a police officer constitutes legitimate performance of official duties and found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by mistake of facts or by misapprehending legal principles

3) With respect to the case of 2019 Highest 1256 (the occupation of obstruction of business and assault), the Defendant did not have the intent of assault, and did not exercise the power to the extent of obstructing the work of the victims. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.