The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, etc.) of the lower court is too unreasonable;

2. The crime of this case committed by the defendant, under the influence of alcohol, interferes with the victim's duties by means of taking a bath at the control point operated by the victim, and breabing the brea, etc., obstructing the performance of official duties by assaulting the police officers dispatched after receiving the victim's report. In addition, while being tried due to the above crime, the victim's duties are repeatedly obstructed from the above method in the above crime, and the crime was committed to damage public goods in the course of investigating the crime, and the nature of the crime is not very good. The defendant committed the crime again, even before the date of the crime of this case, even though he had the record of being notified of the summary order by the crime of interference with the victim's duties as above, even if he had the record of being subject to the summary order by the crime of obstruction of the victim's duties, which

On the other hand, the defendant is against the division of the crime of this case in depth, and again, the points of this case in which the defendant would not cause damage, such as interfering with his duties, and the defendant has been working as an educational administrative official for 20 years, the defendant has been punished once by a fine for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) and has no record of criminal punishment except for the crime of interference with business as above, and there are circumstances to some extent of consideration in the circumstances where the defendant committed the crime of interference with business of this case, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment except for the crime of interference with business, and there seems to have been some occurrence of the case (as stated in the facts in the prosecution, it seems that the victim's employee packing bak away from the floor as it appears to have been partially discovered). The defendant submitted a written application to the court that the victim would disrupt the defendant's wife, and also the police officer at the time of the obstruction of the performance of duties of this