The judgment below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, even though the defendant did not contain any enemy G, who is a police officer, nor did it constitute assault to the extent that the victim's shoulder is likely to obstruct the police officer's performance

Judgment

In relation to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties as stipulated in Article 136 of the Criminal Act, violence means an act of exercising force against a public official who performs official duties, and the use of intimidation as stipulated in the same Article means that the public official directly or indirectly means an act of exercising force against a public official who performs official duties, and the means of intimidation refers to a notice of harm and injury that may cause fear of a person, or the method thereof is not to prevent language, document, direct, indirect, or specification or rupture (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do326, Mar. 24, 1981). Meanwhile, in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, violence and intimidation in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties must be sufficient to prevent a public official from performing his/her official duties by nature, so if it is insignificant and enough

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do449 Decided June 1, 2007). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the victim's shoulder sent by the defendant upon receipt of a report was 2-3 times at the floor of hand or sprinked with drinking and sponsed with the victim's shoulder. This constitutes an assault in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties as a direct exercise of force to the extent that it may interfere with the victim's execution of duties.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is just, and the defendant's assertion is not justified.

Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is not reasonable.