Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (A) The National Assembly decided on the budget bill concerning D in 2013, specifying the incidental conditions of the three paragraphs and reporting the results thereof within 70 days, and decided to execute the budget after executing the budget. The purpose is that D Construction should be suspended for 70 days, and the Maritime Headquarters enforced the construction without suspending the construction.

In addition, the vehicular road connected to the road in front of the schedule of the D project team (hereinafter “the project team”) is prohibited from left turn, and the front of the project team is the original river site. Since the naval headquarters established the access road after changing the form and quality of the vehicle without obtaining permission from the river management agency, it cannot be deemed as a work worth protecting the operation of the construction vehicle that intrudes the central line and passes through illegal and illegal access roads to the left left.

As above, the Defendant merely intended 100 times to urge the suspension, etc. of illegal D construction works. As such, there was intention to interfere with the business.

The crime of interference with business cannot be deemed to have exercised the “defensive force” of the crime of interference with business, and the construction vehicle at the time allowed access through other entrances, so there is no danger of interference with business, and the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act.

(B) The part of the obstruction of performance of official duties is that the Defendant: (a) committed a police officer’s attempt to have the police officer forced to move her peacefully, and (b) contacted the Defendant’s body with the body of the police officer’s J; (c) brought about a new attack; and (d) told him to do so; (c) even though he did not take any measure, the Defendant did not have the police officer’s return to the police officer; and (d) therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the intent to interfere with the performance of official duties.

Furthermore, the Defendant’s above act cannot be deemed as impeding the police officer’s performance of duties, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an “Assault” in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.