The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the error of fact or interference with misunderstanding of legal principles: An engineer on a bridge is a public official G’s official duties.

In the event that a private person is mobilized for the execution of public duties, it cannot be deemed that the private person’s business is independently located, and thus, it cannot be said that a crime of interference with the private person’s business is committed when he resists the performance of public duties by force.

Therefore, the defendant's act of occupying a bridge does not constitute a interference with the business of the bridge article, because it is a power to resist the execution officer's acts during the performance of official duties.

On the part of obstructing the performance of official duties: The defendant's act of not getting off on a bridge does not constitute a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties by force, but did not meet the requirements for arresting a flagrant offender at the time when the police intended to arrest the defendant. As such, the defendant's display of drinking water to a police officer is resistance to illegal arrest, and does not constitute a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

A public prosecutor has instituted a public prosecution against G for interfering with the execution of official duties by the execution officer G, but at the original trial, he/she applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment with a view to obstructing the performance of official duties by the police officer and obstructing the performance of official duties by the police officer H, etc., and the lower court permitted it on September 30, 2016 and convicted all the altered charges.

In that regard, the court below revoked the ruling of permission for changes in indictment made on September 30, 2016, on the ground that the first facts charged at the court below and the modified facts charged at the court below cannot be seen as identical to the facts at the third trial date, and thus the court below cannot maintain any further.

another.