The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence against the Defendants is published.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the Jeju Viewing public officials at the time of the instant case made a request for voluntary removal of the tent installed illegally and issued an order for restoration. This constitutes an order for removal, etc. under Article 83 subparagraph 1 of the Road Act. Accordingly, even though the duty of omission under Article 45 of the Road Act, including the Defendants, is converted to the duty of alternative act, and the execution of removal of the tent by the above public officials constitutes legitimate performance of official duties under Article 65 of the Road Act, the court below acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the removal by the above public officials was not legitimate performance of official duties. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

Before determining the grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor, the public prosecutor examined ex officio, and the public prosecutor applied for the amendment to a bill of amendment to the indictment, which changes the 11th and 14th of the facts charged in the instant case as follows. Since this court permitted this, the subject of the judgment against the Defendants was different, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

[Then, the public officials belonging to the Jeju Broadcasting Service Co., Ltd. ordered the Defendants to voluntarily remove the said order on several occasions on the grounds that the installation of a tent in India causes danger to pedestrian safety and risks to traffic flow. However, the Defendants failed to comply with the above order.

Accordingly, the above public officials tried to remove the tent installed by the Defendants on the basis of the Road Act, and the Defendants began to be punished for physical fighting with public officials in order to prevent them.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the above grounds for ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case