The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, F is not an arrest but an administrative immediate enforcement pursuant to Article 10-2(1)2 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and thus, it constitutes legitimate performance of official duties even though F did not notify the Defendant of the doctrine, etc. at that time.

The defendant's act of causing an injury to F, such as f's cat and G's inside part of the F's cat and g's hair and causing an injury to F, constitutes the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and injury.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of a fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. On February 15, 2018, the Defendant of this part of the facts charged (the obstruction of performance of official duties and injury) was committed by assaulting D at the Defendant’s residence located in Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, by committing an act of assaulting and injuringing D, which is one of his/her descendants, and received 112 reports from neighboring residents, and thereby verifying the state of D” from the victim F, the police officer, who was a police officer in charge of the Gwanak-gu Police Station Escoping at the site, and G, who was a police officer in charge of carrying out on the spot after receiving 12 reports from neighboring residents, and the police officer’s statement that “I would visit the house and check the state of D,” and the above police officer attempted to keep his/her head from entering the house while preventing the above police officer from entering the house, and continued to arrest the Defendant due to the suspicion of obstruction of official duties against the above F, if he/she was aware of the said G’s son’s hand and his/her head.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by the police officers with respect to the prevention, suppression, and investigation of the above crimes, and at the same time, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim F, such as the number of days of medical treatment.

B. The lower court determined that: (a) F’s act of taking the wallet against the Defendant was an act of arresting the Defendant; (b) the F did not notify the Mondo Principles at that time.