공무집행방해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant did not take a bath or assault against the police officer at the time of the instant case, and in this regard, the police officer F and G’s statements are not consistent and the witness H’s statements are also believed.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found the Defendant guilty of the above statements as reliable.
2. On May 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 22:50 of the facts charged in the instant case, on the ground that, “D cafeteria operated by the Defendant in Daegu Dong-gu, which requires consultation because he did not receive the drinking value as he wishes by two police officers, such as the Daegu Dong Police Station E Zone, a police officer, who directly reported 112 and dispatched to the site, he would not receive the drinking value as he wishes; and (b) he was attached to the police branch with no money; (c) on the ground that he did not receive the drinking value by two police officers, such as the slope F, etc. belonging to the Daegu Dong Police Station E Zone, which is a police officer assigned to the site; and (d) on the ground that he did not receive any drinking value as he wishes, he was found to have frighted by receiving money from the police branch; and (d) if he reported to the Human Rights Commission on whether he will drink it, he will be able to walk the son’s clothes, and continue to walk it.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.
3. Determination
A. The judgment of the court below and the defense counsel asserted to the effect that the defendant did not have hummatic and boomed the police officers F and G or assault the police officers as stated in the facts charged at the time of the instant case, and rather, the above police officers arrested the defendant and suffered bodily injury without notifying the hummatic principle, and thus, the crime of obstructing performance of official duties is not established. However, according to the consistent statements made by the police officers F, G and H, etc. of the victimized police officers, according to these consistent statements.