The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (legal scenarios and unreasonable sentencing)

A. In order to establish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, the legality of performance of official duties is required.

However, the Defendant did not assault fire officers in the course of performing official duties, since fire officers had been injured by negligence while driving the 119 first-aid vehicle due to their breach of duty of care, and assaulted fire officers who tried to confirm the status of the Defendant after causing traffic accidents.

Therefore, in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio determination prior to the judgment.

In the trial of the court, the prosecutor added "on the road" and "19 of the facts stated in the judgment of the court below as stated in the judgment of the court below to the effect that "on the road," and "on the road," the 8-9 of the facts stated in the judgment of the court below to the effect that "the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by fire officers concerning the duty of confirming patient status" were applied for the amendment of the indictment with the purport that "this would interfere with the legitimate execution of duties by the fire officers concerning the duty of confirming patient status," and the defendant applied for the amendment of the indictment with the purport that "the fire officers dispatched for the duty of sending the 119 report case to patients suffering from alcohol addiction" as stated in the judgment of the court below. (ii) The court applied for the amendment of the indictment with the contents added as stated in the "crimes described in the judgment of the court below" as stated in the "crimes

3. Therefore, the court below's decision is erroneous.