The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants, along with other participants in the assembly, interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers in a manner that did not neglect, knowing that police officers could face a disturbance, by throwing a disturbance directly with the other participants in the assembly, or by intentionally neglecting, knowing that police officers could face a disturbance.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. In light of the fact that the portion of the acquittal of the lower court’s unfair sentencing is reversed, a sentence heavier than that of the lower court should be sentenced, that the Defendants’ nature of the crime is not good, and that the Defendants cannot be seen to deny and reflect all the crimes from the investigation agency to the lower court, the sentence sentenced by the lower court (a fine of KRW 5 million for Defendant A, and a fine of KRW 1 million for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime composition as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed to be uncertain and thus it is acceptable, and the case where there was an incomplete intention.

In order to determine the possibility of occurrence of a crime, not only is there a perception of the possibility of occurrence of the crime, but also there is an internal intent to accept the risk of occurrence of the crime. Whether the actor has accepted the possibility of occurrence of the crime or not must be determined by considering how to evaluate the possibility of occurrence of the crime if the general public is based on specific circumstances, such as the form of the act that was disclosed outside, and the situation of the act, without depending on the statement of the offender. In such a case, the burden of proof on the existence of the willful negligence, which is a subjective element of the crime for which the public prosecution was instituted, is the prosecutor.