All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties or misapprehension of legal principles concerning the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties or injury to Party E is committed on the grounds that the Defendant committed the crime of obstruction of official duties or the crime of obstruction of legal reasoning concerning the crime of obstruction of official duties against Party E, and the crime of obstruction of official duties against Party E was committed in the course of illegally arresting the Defendant as an offender in the act of committing an act of obstruction of official duties without notifying of the doctrine, even though the Defendant did not have any traffic accident and the requirements for arrest of the offender was not met. In addition, the Defendant did not commit the crime of obstruction of official duties because there was no assault against Party E, and there was no injury to Party E. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the above crimes. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of obstruction of official duties against Party B, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of obstruction of official duties

Nevertheless, the court below convicted of the above crime. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as to obstruction of performance of official duties, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) Violation of the Road Traffic Act (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime of drinking driving) (the police officers forced the defendant to take blood samples even though the defendant consented to the measurement of blood alcohol by means of blood collection. This constitutes illegal arrest, and accordingly constitutes the result of the measurement of drinking alcohol or the report on detection of drinking drivers, etc., and thus, the admissibility of evidence is not recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below found guilty of the above crime. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or excluding illegally collected evidence.