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. The summary of the grounds for appeal has an intention to pay the value of the article, the calculation of the value of the article to prevent interference with the business of the accused, and the removal from the convenience store has no choice but to leave money from the defendant's wallet; and

In full view of the fact that the calculation is the minimum measure to implement the above measure, and that the police officer's measure against the defendant was a legitimate official duty execution and the defendant's use of violence against the victimized police officer constitutes interference with the execution of official duties.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case was that the Defendant did not want at the “D convenience store” located in Busan Metropolitan City around April 16:0, 2017, and it was difficult for the Defendant to have avoided any disturbance, such as humiliationing and noise. Accordingly, the Defendant prevented the Defendant from stopping the F of the Police Station E box called up upon receiving a report 112, and then was able to take the Defendant out of the convenience store and cut off from the Lao.

The mobile phone blick blick blick blicked the left part of the F at least once.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers on the prevention, suppression, and investigation of crimes.

B. The lower court’s determination is that the Defendant’s act during the course of resisting the above does not constitute an interference with the execution of official duties, since the victimized police officer did not perform official duties in a lawful manner for the following reasons.

Based on the judgment, the defendant was acquitted.

A. Interference with the execution of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established only when the execution of official duties is legitimate, and the execution of official duties is lawful, not only within the abstract authority of the public official, but also within the authority of the public official, and also within the important method as an act of official (Supreme Court Decision 2008. Oct. 1, 2008).