The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not gambling, and there was no evidence that gambling was conducted. Therefore, the police officer’s demand for identification card to the Defendant is an unexplosion under Article 3 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers. As at the time, there was no reason for the police officer’s above act, and in the process, the police officer’s act was deemed to be accompanied by illegal coercion, such as “a person who is a criminal suspect or a person who shows identification card.”

Therefore, spits or spits on the face of police officers do not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties because they resist the above illegal act of performing official duties.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won by fine) is unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In full view of the purpose of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers (hereinafter “the Act”), the contents and structure of Article 1(1) and (2), Article 3(1), (2), (3), and (7) of the Act, determination of whether a police officer constitutes a person subject to non-explosion under Article 3(1) of the Act (hereinafter “person subject to non-explosion”) shall be made based on objective and reasonable criteria as well as the specific circumstances at the time of non-explosion examination, based on the information and professional knowledge obtained in advance, etc. However, it cannot be said that a person subject to non-explosion examination is suspected of having been arrested or detained under the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, in order to ask questions to a person subject to non-examination, a police officer may suspend the person subject to examination in a reasonable manner acceptable by social norms to the minimum extent necessary for accomplishing the purpose, in light of the seriousness of the crime, relevance to the crime, urgency of situation, degree of suspicion, necessity of questioning, etc.