The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the acquittal portion of the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, ① it is lawful for police officers K to demand voluntary behavior, and thus, the Defendant’s act of selling his chest constitutes the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, thereby acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. ② Even if the crime of obstruction of official duties was not committed, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which

B. The sentence of the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (2 million won suspension of sentence of a fine) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of mistake of facts or obstruction of performance of official duties, the Defendant committed assault against police officers H as stated in the lower judgment’s crime No. 2, and continued to receive the above H’s military service, and sold K’s chest to a police box, who was requested by the G assistant K to voluntarily move to a police box from the G assistant K to arrive at the scene, thereby obstructing the Defendant’s legitimate performance of duties concerning police officers’ security and crime prevention.

(2) After recognizing the facts as stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the defendant's act of obstructing the performance of official duties is terminated and the defendant's intention to enter the Cheongdae is waived. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's demand for voluntary performance of duties for the purpose of the investigation of the case cannot be deemed to have been performed by the execution of duties for security or crime prevention, and at the time, K was simply seeking voluntary performance, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant's demand for continuous accompanying is a legitimate execution of duties. Thus, the court below's decision that the defendant's demand for voluntary accompanying cannot be deemed to be a legitimate execution of duties.