All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The admissibility of a video file recorded in documentary evidence submitted by the prosecutor by the prosecutor (hereinafter “the copy of the instant case”) is recognized as being admissible, as it copied the original video file that police officers recorded with a camping cocoin at the time of the instant case as it is, at the time of the instant case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the charge of interfering with each business by denying the admissibility of evidence of the copy of this case is unlawful.

B. Defendant 1) In so doing, the vicarious execution by proxy of the viewing public officials of Seodaemun-do by misapprehending the legal principles does not fall under the duties subject to the obstruction of performance of official duties, and since the Defendant did not assault or threaten public officials, it cannot be said that a special crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is established against the Defendant. 2) The sentence (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The first instance court's decision on the prosecutor's assertion of this part of the facts charged, 1) the copy of this case is not admissible because it is insufficient to recognize that the original recorded at the time of the defendant's act was made as a copy of the original without any artificial adaptation, such as compilations, in the process of creating each CD copy, and thus, the photograph taken up each copy of the above case is not admissible as derivatives evidence. 2) The statement of BM and BN and each damaged item are prepared uniformly with the same contents and form as in the similar case, and their probative value is extremely low as evidence to prove the specific act of the defendant. 3) The witness BM and BN's testimony did not witness the defendant's specific act of interfering with the defendant's business, but are merely a comprehensive statement to the extent that the defendant had been found at the time of interference with the defendant's business, and thus, it is not admissible as above.