All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 7 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 3 million) pronounced by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the obstruction of performance of official duties), the Defendant did not simply engage in a cam dispute with E, the victim of the obstruction of official duties at the time, and thus, the act of the police officers arresting such Defendant as an flagrant offender cannot be deemed lawful performance of official duties because it did not meet the reasonableness and necessity of arrest. In addition, as stated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant did not have the wheels to arrest the police officer H’s boom or breath or breath, as stated in this part of the facts charged. Accordingly, the lower court convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged that the Defendant interfered with legitimate performance of official duties by assaulting the police officer H, and thus, is unreasonable. 2) The above sentence imposed by

C. The above punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is a premise for a public official’s legitimate performance of official duties. Whether the performance of official duties by a public official belonging to an abstract authority is legitimate shall be determined objectively and reasonably based on the specific circumstances at the time of the act, and shall not be determined ex post facto in pure objective criteria.

Likewise, the legality of arrest in the act of committing the crime should be objectively determined based on the specific situation at the time of arrest.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do4763, Aug. 23, 2013). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, (i) H and I, a police officer, sent to the site after receiving a report that there was a disturbance in the instant clothes, and (ii) when entering the above clothes, many persons, including the Defendants.