The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the legal principles does not constitute an act of guiding the defendant in a toilet, and the defendant's act does not constitute an act of assault, which constitutes a constituent element of obstructing the performance of official duties.

B. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, and was physically and mentally deprived or physically weak.

(c)

The sentence of the court below that is unfair in sentencing (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is established by assault or intimidation against a public official who performs his/her duties.

Here, the term "performance of duties" does not refer only to the time when a public official actually performs an act necessary for the performance of duties, but also to the time when a public official is working for the performance of his/her duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9919, Jan. 15, 2009, etc.). In addition, violence at this time refers to the exercise of illegal tangible power against a public official, which is either directly or indirectly, or not, and intimidation refers to any notice of harm and injury that may cause fear to the other party.

The assault or intimidation is against a public official who performs his/her duties in light of its nature and must interfere with the performance of his/her duties, and if the public official is minor and thus not opened, it does not constitute assault or intimidation against such public official (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do449, Jun. 1, 2007; 2009Do13968, Jun. 24, 2010). The act of releasing the Defendant’s lock who was arrested as an flagrant offender by the police officer of the Dongjakdong Police Station in Seoul and providing guidance to the Defendant to the toilet constitutes an act of interference with the performance of official duties. The act of the Defendant when he/she returns to the right side of F on his/her hand constitutes an act of assault against the crime of interference with the performance of official duties.

The defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is without merit.