Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, Defendant A (1) at the time of misunderstanding and misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant took a bath to go back to the way that he was living in the place away from police officers, and the Defendant was arrested as an offender in the act of committing a crime by two to three police officers. This is an illegal arrest lacking the necessity and reasonableness of the arrest, and the act of obstructing the performance of official duties of this case constitutes a legitimate act, since it was committed in the sense of resistance to the arrest process.

Even if the arrest process of domestic affairs is lawful, the defendant merely took a bath in the situation where there are several police officers, and the extent of the arrest process is minor and does not constitute intimidation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's obstruction of performing official duties is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing) sentence of the lower court (the Defendant A’s imprisonment of August and the Defendant B’s fine of KRW 4 million) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant, upon reporting a disturbance, such as destroying another’s property under the influence of alcohol, used the police officer to clarify his status and to return home, but did not comply with the request, and ② the Defendant was able to arrest the police officer if he continues his desire from the police officer at the time of arrest.

(3) At the time of arrest, P made a statement to the effect that at the time of arrest, the Defendant was only able to take care of the police officer from a considerable distance from the police officer to the house, and that the police officer in one’s own 2 to 3 did over-sup the Defendant, thereby suppressing the Defendant. However, P made a statement to the effect that it was excessive.