공무집행방해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor as to the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although it was acknowledged that the defendant committed assault against E by a police officer who lawfully performs his duties at the time
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, in the course of the police officer E’s control over the Defendant’s female-friendly job offering F by drinking alcohol at the time of the instant case and the preparation of investigation documents related thereto, it is recognized that the police officer demanded the Defendant to present an identification card to the Defendant interfering with the Defendant, such as intending to take hand on the investigation documents, and the Defendant’s driver intending to escape from the scene her body with his/her hand and stop his/her career with his/her body without complying therewith, and that the investor was booming the Defendant’s hand and pushed the E’s body on the part of his/her ship.
B. However, in light of the following circumstances revealed through the records of the instant case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that E’s act of taking arms against the Defendant by hand and blocking the career of the Defendant by body constitutes a non-inspection or a flagrant offender with legal requirements and methods, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that E’s above act constitutes legitimate performance of official duties.
① Although the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was on board F’s vehicle while driving alcohol, the Defendant committed a specific act to help F to drive alcohol, in addition to the fact that he was on board the said vehicle.
In the absence of any circumstances to suspect, E did not refer to the investigation of the charge of aiding and abetting driving alcohol before the Defendant interfered with the F’s investigation document by intending to hand, etc., and E requested the Defendant to produce a personal identification card after the Defendant’s foregoing interference and did not comply with this.