The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of obstruction of the performance of official duties and injury on the ground that the victim's act of control by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles did not meet the lawful requirements and go through the procedure, and did not know whether the victim was a public official who has legitimate control at the time, and there was no credibility since the victim's statement on the act of injury had been reversed.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and fines for 2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant argued to the same effect as this part of the judgment of the court below, and the court below found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of “(2019 order 2572)” (as to this part of the judgment of the court below, regulating the scene of the automobile maintenance business without registration on Sundays constitutes “legal performance of official duties” protected by the crime of interference with the performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act, and the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, committed an injury to the victim due to breaking the clothes of the back part of the victim who is a public official regulating the Defendant, and there is sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had committed an intentional act of interference with the performance of official duties.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records closely, the above determination by the court below is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The defendant's factual mistake and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

The Korean Criminal Procedure Law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, has a unique area for sentencing determination, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court's sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.