The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant prices fire officials to be launched or imprisoned to fire officials, such as the facts charged in the instant case.

The assault of obstruction of the performance of official duties shall be an assault by force to the extent that the public official performing official duties would interfere with the performance of official duties, and shall be recognized as a public official and violence.

However, the Defendant’s assault of this case is merely an anti-private act and does not meet the requirements of the obstruction of performance of official duties.

B. Taking into account the various circumstances of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence (fine 2,00,000) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, especially the entry of F who is a damaged public official, and G’s initial statements and CCTV images inside the ambulances, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of assaulting fire officials F and G as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below.

Furthermore, in view of the fact that the Defendant, recognized by the above evidence, constantly stringed, stringed, and moved, and the damaged public officials stated that the Defendant was aware at the time, it can be recognized that the Defendant had the intention to interfere with the performance of official duties.

Unlike others, the original court cannot be deemed to have erred by mistake of facts or by misapprehending legal principles.

B. There is no record of criminal punishment against the defendant on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

Along with the damaged public officials, the damaged public officials want to take the defendant's seat.

However, the court below seems to have taken a fine of KRW 2,00,000 in full consideration of these favorable circumstances.

The circumstance that a defendant may be subject to a separate disciplinary action as a public official is not only an element of punishment.

Rather, the defendant is a public official.