The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles1) When the defendant was at the time when he was scambling against D, it cannot be deemed that D was performing his duties because it was not at the stage of the defendant's civil petition hearing, and thus, it cannot be deemed that D was in the course of performing his duties. Even in the course of performing his duties, D grants illegal building permission to the defendant's home-based new building building building building, issued orders for the resumption of construction, and did not intend to listen without hearing the defendant's civil petition while disregarding the defendant's attitude to confirm it. This act of D cannot be deemed as legitimate execution of official duties, and thus the defendant's act does not constitute a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties. (ii) Since the defendant's act of scambling against D cannot be deemed as an act to the extent that it could interfere with

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(B) The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established when an assault or intimidation is committed against a public official performing his/her duties, and the assault here is sufficient to exercise the force of force against a person, and it does not require the occurrence of a result that specifically interferes with the performance of duties as an abstract dangerous offender (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do21537, Mar. 29, 2018). In full view of the specific judgment of the court below and the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the trial court, the following can be seen as a crime.