All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 피고인 ⑴ 사실 오인 내지 법리 오해 ㈎ 이 사건 당시 경찰관들의 피고인 일행에 대한 제지 행위 및 이에 따른 일련의 채 증 행위는 위법하므로 공무집행 방해가 성립하지 않는다.

The first instance court accepted police officers I, H, and J's respective investigative agencies and court statements without credibility in violation of the rules of evidence, and it was not easy for police officers to recognize that police officers did not intend to enter into the country as of the time of the instant case.

In order to mislead facts and to interfere with the performance of official duties, the court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the legality of official duties.

㈏ 피고인의 행위는 공무원의 직무집행을 방해할 만한 정도의 폭행에 해당하지 않고, 피고인에게는 공무집행 방해의 인식도 없었다.

㈐ 피고인의 행위는 정당 방위 또는 정당행위로서 사회 상규에 반하지 아니하므로 위법성이 조각된다.

Shebly Sentencing 1 Deliberation type (1.5 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

(b) the first deliberation sentence of the Prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable;

2. Determination:

A. (i) The Defendant’s defense counsel’s assertion that the execution of official duties of this case is illegal is identical to the grounds for appeal in the first instance trial, and the first instance court rejected the Defendant’s defense counsel’s assertion in detail on the grounds of the Defendant’s defense counsel’s assertion as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, “1. As to the assertion that the Defendant was a lawful performance of official duties.”

Examining the above judgment in comparison with the records, the first deliberation judgment is just and acceptable. Contrary to the defendant's assertion, there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts in the judgment of the first instance, or by misunderstanding the legal principles on the legality of performance of official duties, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, it is true.