The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. The final judgment that became the source of enforcement of the instant compulsory removal is to remove two containers. However, the removal by enforcement officers is a prefabricated building two buildings. Thus, the enforcement officers’ enforcement of the instant compulsory removal was erroneous enforcement of a specific secondary law.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the establishment of a crime of interference with the execution of official duties against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the judgment.

B. Total guilty

Even if the sentence of the court below (two years of suspended execution, protection observation, and community service 100 hours in August) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. If the title ordering the removal of a building to determine the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is specific in the case of the title of enforcement, and the site can be found, there is a detailed difference between the indication of the building subject to the original removal of the right of enforcement and the structure and size of the actual building.

Even if there is no obstacle to the progress of alternative enforcement, it will be said that there is no obstacle.

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below's determination that recognized the defendant a crime of obstructing the execution of official duties on the ground that the execution of this case is lawful, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

1) According to the Defendant’s assertion, it is around April 2015 to 200:4.