The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (the point of causing injury and damage to property that interfered with the performance of special duties), the Defendant, by carrying a brue, who is a dangerous object, interfered with legitimate performance of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender G, who is a police officer, and causing injury to the above G, is recognized. Thus, the crime of causing injury to the performance of special duties is established, and at least the reduced fact, obstructing the performance

In addition, it is also recognized that the defendant's damage was fully recognized by cutting down the door of the D building and returning it.

The defendant and the defense counsel of the court below recognized the injury caused by interference with the execution of special duties at the preparatory hearing date, but denied the above crime on the day of the trial that was proceeded with by the citizen participation trial.

In that sense, according to Article 37(1) of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials, new arguments and evidence should not be presented at the trial date.

Nevertheless, the lower court deprived the public prosecutor of the opportunity to prove the facts charged by accepting new arguments by the defense counsel on the day of the public participation trial.

In addition, the Defendant and the defense counsel of the lower court did not assert any content as to the damage of property among the facts charged in the instant case on the ground of not guilty, and the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground of its stated reasoning.

These measures of the court below are contrary to the principle of court-oriented trials that the conviction of innocence against the substance of a criminal case should be formed by a court-oriented trial.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the amount of KRW 500,000,000) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court’s judgment is the first instance judgment that obstructed the performance of special official duties.