The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. On December 12, 2016, the grounds for appeal specified in the statement explaining the reasons for appeal submitted by the defense counsel of the defendant, which is the summary of the reasons for appeal, shall be determined only to the extent of supplement in case of supplement of the reasons for appeal specified in the statement explaining the reasons for appeal.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant assaulted the victimized public official against the victim who returned to the scene after the completion of the civil petition processing. At the time of the Defendant’s assaulting the victim, the victim was not under lawful execution of official duties, and thus, the Defendant cannot be punished as a crime of obstructing the performance

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged that the lower court did not establish a crime of interference with the performance of official duties because the victim does not correspond to a public official performing official duties, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail by stating in the written judgment the judgment on the above argument under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s argument”. Examining the above judgment of the lower court in comparison with the record, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.

In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the act of a public official in charge of construction of the E-Gu office and a civil petition-related civil petition-related civil petition-related civil petition-related civil petition-related civil petition-related civil petition

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the fact that the discretionary judgment takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and in addition, in light of the ex post facto core character of the appellate court, there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing is discretionary.