The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

One divers (Evidence No. 1) that has been seized.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the part concerning the obstruction of performance of official duties by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, only the police officer who was in a mixed state by taking a philopon at the time of committing the crime and attempted to arrest the defendant, and did not have an intention to interfere with the performance of official duties.

With regard to the point of possession of philophones, since the defendant was actually arrested by the investigation agency, it cannot be said that he possessed philophones after being arrested by the investigation agency.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the event that any seized article does not exist at the time a judgment of ex officio is rendered, or any seized article has already been destroyed pursuant to Articles 130(2) and (3) and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court may not pronounce the confiscation of such article.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4182 Decided June 14, 2012, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6982 Decided January 28, 2010, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3420 Decided July 15, 2010, etc.). According to the records, the lower court’s order for confiscation can be recognized as having already been discarded prior to the lower judgment, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on confiscation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Nevertheless, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the part of obstruction of performance of official duties, the defendant was suffering from disturbance, and the police officer F for the dubing of uniforms attempted to visit the site to verify the defendant's personal information, etc., but the defendant himself can be found to have committed assault by walking the above F's clothes. Thus, the defendant's intention of obstruction of official duties is recognized.

However, according to the above evidence, it is impossible to find out the defendant's seat on the street.