The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor, 1 year of suspended sentence, 3 years of suspended sentence, 40 hours of the alcohol therapy) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine for the obstruction of performance of official duties on June 2012, without being aware of the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine for the obstruction of performance of official duties, and again committed the same kind of crime, and that the Defendant obstructed the legitimate performance of official duties by exercising violence, and at the same time, there is a need for a strict punishment corresponding to the police officer in order to establish a legitimate public authority.

However, considering the fact that the defendant is deemed to have committed a crime in the first instance trial and against his mistake, that he was detained for about two months in the original trial, that if the defendant is sentenced to a stay of execution, his eligibility as a caregiver may be lost, making it difficult for the defendant to maintain his livelihood, that the defendant may overcome his ability to receive appropriate treatment in society, and that the defendant's age, character, character and environment, motive or circumstance of the crime, means and consequence, and all other conditions of sentencing as well as the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is somewhat heavy.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, and the following is ruled again.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence presented by this court is as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below except for adding “1. Defendant’s oral statement” to the summary of the evidence of the court below. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 136(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties) concerning the relevant criminal facts and the choice of punishment.