The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, only attached several seconds to the outer part of the victimized police officer E by hand, and did not see it in front and rear, and there was a assault exceeding the degree of police force against the police officer by committing such act.

The Defendant’s grandchildren could have contacted the Defendant’s chest part of E in the process of putting the appearance, but there was an intentional indecent act by force on the Defendant.

Although it cannot be readily determined, the judgment of the court below which convicted each of the facts charged in this case of interference with official duties and indecent act by force is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a physical and mental weak state by drinking alcohol.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (the imprisonment of six months and forty-hours of time) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court prior to remand, the first instance court: (a) the police officer affiliated with the police station D police station sent to the scene with another police officer upon receiving 112 reports to the effect that he was sent to the scene by the Defendant, who is a taxi engineer, and the passenger, and (b) the Defendant was sent to the scene to verify the personal information and the details of the report; and (c) the Defendant was able to express his desire to return home upon the completion of the instant case, and the Defendant was able to see Supreme Court Decisions 98Do662 Decided 12, May 12, 1998; 2) the police officer was able to see the other police officer’s outer left part of the E, and 3) the Defendant was able to turn back to the back of the instant case at the time of the arrival of the instant case.