The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles ① Establishment and repair of the instant chemical team is conducted for the purpose of preventing the assembly of the Defendant, etc. from sources, and it does not constitute an illegal performance of official duties that does not comply with the relevant procedures, and thus does not constitute an object of protection of interference with official duties.

(2) The defendant does not have any fact that he/she displays M face and does not constitute violence against public officials.

(3) No defendant has conspired with E.

(4) The defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act as a passive resistance to the exercise of public authority.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles by the Defendant’s assertion (i.e., establishment and repair of the chemical team of this case) whether the act of establishing and repairing the chemical team of this case constitutes the subject of protection of the obstruction of performance of official duties as provided by Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established only when the performance of official duties is legitimate. “Justifiable performance of official duties” means not only the act belongs to the abstract authority of the public official, but also the act must be within the specific authority

However, even if some defects are found in the method of performing official duties in the Criminal Act, it cannot be immediately deemed as not performing official duties subject to protection under the Criminal Act. Whether interference with the performance of official duties would be subject to protection under the Criminal Act by regarding interference with the performance of official duties ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account relevant laws and regulations, the degree of the violation, and all other circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do608, Oct. 12, 2007, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) On March 3, 2013, the purpose of demonstration is to conduct demonstration in front of the doors of the old persons' fire prevention roads.