The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) In relation to the point of interference with business, even though the defendant has raised words within the remaining agricultural cooperatives of South Korea, there was no act that could interfere with the business of marina.

B. Regarding the obstruction of the performance of official duties, even though the Defendant had physical contact with police officers while making a ditch, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant intentionally committed an assault or obsesses.

(c)

With regard to defamation, the facts alleged by the defendant are true and one person's demonstration was conducted for the public interest.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the statements by employees C, records of the occurrence report prepared by police officers who were dispatched to the site of the case, and photographs of CCTV screen images at the site of the case, as stated in the facts charged, the defendant could recognize the fact that the defendant interfere with the business of the remaining agricultural cooperative of the victim by using the same method as stated in the facts charged.

B. In full view of the statements of police officers who have been assaulted, the degree of the assault committed by the defendant, the photographs of the assault committed by the defendant, etc. as stated by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the police officers dispatched by the defendant have committed sufficient assault to obstruct the execution of official duties.

(c)

As stated in the lower court regarding defamation, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for April, suspension of execution two years, community service 80 hours on March 5, 2014, on the ground that the Defendant had attempted to steal any gambling which includes alcoholic beverages in Mar. 5, 2014, in the Southern Agricultural Cooperative of Gwangju District Court, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 4 months, suspension of execution 2 years, community service 80 hours, and the Defendant appealed and appealed against the above judgment but became final and conclusive by all dismissal. ② The time when the Defendant conducted a single-person demonstration was sentenced to the judgment of the first instance court, and the Defendant was dissatisfied with the purport that the Defendant had no intention of theft during the trial of the first instance court. However, the lower court