The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that police officers E put the defendant's arms in order to restrain the defendant who seeks to move to C.

E’s above act is necessary to prevent and restrain crimes under the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and thus constitutes legitimate performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the grounds that the credibility of the E's statement on the grounds that the defendant's sale was rejected and that the E's act cannot be seen as a legitimate performance of official duties, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, and

2. Determination

A. On December 18, 2017, at around 20:10, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant assaulted the Defendant’s wife C in front of the Defendant’s house located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, to open a door, but, on the grounds that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, C was not opening a door to the Defendant’s door, she was sent to the Defendant, and she was under the report of 112 of Seoul Western Police Station D Boxes, which the Defendant sent to the Defendant upon receipt of the report of 112 of the Defendant, caused disturbance, she spawd, spad, spad, spad, spad, spad with the Defendant to check the Defendant’s personal information, etc., and she spad, she spad, spad, spawd, and spawd, back and rear the part of the 10-day river and the part of the tension.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties by police officers, and at the same time injured the victim.

B. The lower court’s judgment acknowledged the fact that, according to the police officer E’s statement, E first prevented the Defendant from selling the Defendant, and such act of E does not constitute a case where a police officer can exercise his force first and control the other party, and thus, it cannot be deemed a legitimate performance of official duties. Thus, the Defendant’s act is from the current unfair infringement.