The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant merely exercised the power against the obstruction of duties, since the victim was on the side of the driver’s seat of the taxi driving.

It can not be seen that the victim was engaged in such conduct to wait for the police after reporting the victim to the police, and did not have any intent to interfere with the victim's affairs. Since the victim's taxi business is illegal, it does not constitute a business subject to protection of interference with duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the crime of obstructing another person’s free will should be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the time and place of crime, motive and purpose of crime, number of persons, mode of force, type of duty, type of duty, status of victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009). As such, not only violence, intimidation, but also pressure by social, economic, political status, and royalty, etc. are included therein, and in reality, the victim’s free will is not required. However, in light of the offender’s consolation, number of persons, and surrounding circumstances, etc., it means the ability sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will. Thus, whether it constitutes force should be determined objectively by taking into account all the circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009).