The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of five months and a fine of three hundred thousand won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant (1)’s act of obstructing the performance of official duties among the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, it is difficult to view that Defendant’s act constitutes an assault stipulated in the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, and that Defendant’s act actually interfered with, or could objectively interfere with

subsection (b) of this section.

(2) The lower court’s improper sentencing (five months of imprisonment and ten days of detention) is too unreasonable.

B. (1) In the misapprehension of the legal principle, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the legal principle is whether the Defendant was able to commit the Defendant’s “Ise and her old age, and her old age.”

The body of the person in his body shall be discarded off.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the expression " constitutes an insulting act that defames the victim's external reputation," is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the offense of insult.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

A. In relation to a crime of interference with the performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act, violence means an act of exercising force against a public official who performs official duties, and such violence includes direct and indirect use of force against a public official (Supreme Court Decision 81Do326, Mar. 24, 1981). Since violence and intimidation in the crime of interference with the performance of official duties should be sufficient to interfere with a public official’s performance of duties in light of the nature, it does not constitute violence and intimidation if it is minor and to the extent that the public official is not open (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do449, Jun. 1, 2007). B. In light of the above legal principles, in light of the above legal principles, it is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the assault committed by a defendant to a police officer shall be deemed to interfere with the performance of official duties by a public official.