The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the performance of official duties by misunderstanding the legal principles of the defendant, misunderstanding police officers, concerning the handling of reporting duties by misunderstanding the legal principles of the defendant, was the time to instruct taxi engineers to operate and guide the defendant to file a civil petition, and thereafter, the performance of official duties

Therefore, even if the defendant assaulted D, he can not be punished as a crime of interference with the execution of official duties.

Even if D was lawful performance of official duties, the defendant's act is not an active violence, but an passive legitimate act against the arrest of the plaintiff, and thus illegal as it constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act.

The punishment of the court below (4 million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's (unfair sentencing) sentence of the lower court is too uncomfortable and unfair.

Judgment

In the case of obstruction of the performance of official duties under Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act with regard to the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the "execution of official duties" does not refer only to the case where a public official actually performs the necessary act in his/her official duties, but also to the case where a public official is in his/her position for the performance of his/her duties. In accordance with the nature of his/her duties, it is inappropriate to discuss the commencement and termination of his/her duties individually separately from the process of performing his/her duties, and there is a considerable case where he/she

The judgment of the court below and the court below duly adopted and examined the case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do383, Sept. 21, 199; 2008Do9919, Jan. 15, 2009). According to the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the court below, the police officers D, who were on duty within the police box, received a civil petition by a taxi engineer that the defendant who is a passenger does not get out of the police box, and the facts are between the roads before the police box where the above police box where the taxi has a taxi, and D, taken the number plate of the taxi.