The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and E shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A fine for negligence of KRW 2,00,000, Defendant E.

In summary of the grounds for appeal, the punishment (4 million won of a fine) imposed by Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as the "fine") by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B The punishment (fine 2 million won) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

Defendant

C For the following reasons, since the administrative vicarious execution of each of the instant cases by the Dongjak-gu Office is unlawful, the defendant's act against this is deemed legitimate act or self-defense and thus the illegality is excluded.

Although the improvement of street environment can be done by different methods according to the 3-A(b) action of the decision of the court below, it violated the principle of complementaryity and proportionality by unilaterally removing violent and street points without dialogue and negotiation.

Article 4(3) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act was violated because the public official in charge of Paragraph 3(b) of the decision of the court below did not present a certificate indicating that he is an executive officer.

The punishment (fine 2 million won) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Defendant

Since administrative vicarious execution under Article 3-A of the decision of the court below is unlawful as to the assertion of legal principles, the defendant's act against this is justified as it constitutes legitimate act or self-defense.

The punishment (fine 500,000) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

A The defendant seems to have the attitude to recognize and reflect the crime of this case.

However, the defendant assaulted public officials to remove illegal street points to interfere with the performance of official duties, and at the same time, injured three persons, such as causing four-way treatment to one of them.

Efforts have not been made to recover damage or reached an agreement with the victims.

Before the crime of this case was committed, there was a record of punishment three times as a fine, because the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties was committed.

In addition, considering all sentencing conditions, such as age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, economic situation, and the background of the instant crime, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

Defendant.