The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s assertion (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is not a legitimate public official performance, and the Defendant did not have a citizen by drinking fatherbbage.

In addition, the defendant did not assault the body of police officer G with the appearance of police officer G, and the defendant's appearance contacted the body of G.

Even if the defendant is in contact with F in the process of learning the event that the defendant was pushed ahead of F, there was no intention to assault G to the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding guilty.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is excessively unreasonable compared to the extent of the Defendant’s responsibility.

B. The Prosecutor’s assertion that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unreasonable, compared to the Defendant’s degree of responsibility.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court on May 10, 2016, as to the interference with F’s performance of official duties, the Defendant attempted to move to the road from May 10, 2016 to the court security management members around the time of entering the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the court’s administrative office requested D to provide D’s personal protection services around the time of attendance at the office of work 09:0-09:20 D. The Defendant’s time and time indicated in the facts charged, and at the place, obstructed F’s front way so that the Defendant does not leave the road to the roadway, and F’s personal protection service was pushed to the Defendant’s delivery volume of three to four meters, and each of the facts that the Defendant was pushed to the Defendant, and the F made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of first instance, to the effect that “the Defendant’s life was threatened,” and that the Defendant’s life was threatened to the Road.”