1. On the grounds of its stated reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged, contrary to the verdict of innocence, on the grounds that the Defendant was found to have obstructed the legitimate performance of duties by police officers and witnesses, based on the testimony, etc. of the victimized police officers and witnesses, etc.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of the jury verdict in the participatory trial, or by misapprehending facts in violation of logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in

2. As to the assertion of justifiable act

The defendant asserts that the defendant's act is not contrary to social norms, and the illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Code, because it is merely a resistance against the police officer's illegal traffic control act.

However, the Defendant’s assertion in this part of the grounds of appeal is not a legitimate ground of appeal on the premise of facts different from the facts acknowledged by the lower court. Furthermore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on acts that do not go against the social rules under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Chief Justice Kim Shin -

Justices Park Sang-ok