The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, even though it was merely a mistake of facts or of misapprehending the legal doctrine, which was conducted by police officers in order to mislead the Defendant out of the house with the lack of legality. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine, while the Defendant resisted the police officers with the lack of legality.

B. The Defendant asserts that, with respect to the punishment of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment and confiscation) of the lower judgment, the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who has reported 112 on several occasions from adjoining residents due to his or her severe high level, humiliation, scopic music, etc. in his or her usual house.

At around 23:40 on June 8, 2016, the Defendant: (a) received 112 reports from adjoining residents at the office of the Defendant, the Defendant: (b) opened a door; (c) but, (c) “Isk, C, C, C, C, and F, C, E, and F, of the Busan Police Station D, which called the “Isk, C, C, Hask, Hask, Hask, Hask, and Haskhsk',” and (d) B, which are dangerous articles that the police officers would stop electricity to meet the Defendant, and (c) “Isk, C, C, F, E, and F, E, and F, of the Busan Police Station D, which called the “Isk, C, F, E, E, E, and Iskn's kn't kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's k.”

Accordingly, the Defendant, a police officer, interfered with legitimate performance of duties concerning E and F’s 112 reporting duties.

3. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties as stipulated in Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established only when the execution of official duties is legitimate, and the legitimate execution of official duties here belongs to the abstract authority of the public official.