The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, the act of photographing F’s motion picture is lawful, and the Defendant’s assaulting F’s arms constitutes interference with the performance of official duties. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (the suspended sentence of one million won in penalty) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) On August 3, 2015, around 00:40 on August 3, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around D convenience stores in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) at around 00:40, at the time of the demand for returning home, the policeF, etc. belonging to the Sungdong Police Station E District of Seoul Sungdong Police Station was dispatched to the police station and requested for the return home, and the Defendant was subject to penalty due to drinking disturbance, etc.; (c) the Defendant was put in F’s arms by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted F and interfered with legitimate execution of duties on the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes by police, public peace and order maintenance.

According to F’s statement at the investigative agency and the court below’s court, and the reproduction of video CDs, the court below held that the Defendant committed an act of smugglinging or cutting off the F’s arms that the Defendant carried out a mobile phone photographing, but it is acknowledged that the Defendant committed an act of cutting off or cutting off the F’s arms that the Defendant took a mobile phone, but in order for the investigative agency to take the face, body, etc. of the suspect who is the object of the portrait in the course of investigating the criminal facts, it is short of the abstract grounds prescribed by the Police Act or the Act on the Execution of Police Duties and Duties of Police Officers, and it satisfies the specific lawful requirements prescribed by law, such as Articles 216 and 217 of the Criminal Procedure Act. According to the records (including the reproduction of video CDs), the Defendant does so as stated in the facts charged.