The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Grounds for appeal (legal scenarios, unreasonable sentencing)

A. Although there is no possibility that the defendant committed an assault against E, etc. in the course of performing official duties at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the police officer G arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender without confirming the elements of the crime of obstruction of performance of duties (Assault or intimidation). At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the defendant did not have any concern

Therefore, the arrest of the G flagrant offender does not constitute a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is established by assaulting or threatening a public official performing his duties. The assault at this time refers to the act of exercising an unlawful tangible power against a public official, which is either directly, indirectly, or not, and the intimidation refers to a notice of any harm and injury that may cause fear to the other party. However, the assault or intimidation is against a public official performing his duties by nature and must interfere with the execution of his duties.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do13968 Decided June 24, 2010, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9020 Decided March 16, 2007) B.

According to the records of this case and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (E, G, L respective statements), if public officials E were to impose an administrative fine on the Defendant’s vehicle in the course of performing parking control duties on November 9, 2018, it was recognized that the Defendant interfered with the progress of the above vehicle by “an act of opening the steering gate of a crackdown vehicle in transit and cutting the arms between the chief gate and the vehicle, cutting down the body inside the front door and cutting down the body, etc.,” and that E reported the accident to the police by continuing to exceed 30 minutes.