A. At around 02:10 on December 22, 2013, Defendant A: (a) sought contact from the E box located in Seoul Western-gu, Seoul; (b) and (c) sought the case that the F was reported to 112, the person irrelevant to the reported case, who was not in charge of the reported case, sought the request of the police officer who was sent out of the police box; and (d) carried out a attack with the number and body of the police officers who were affiliated with the said police box, by hand, carried away from the police box; and (e) carried out a match with the police officer who was in charge of the reported case.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the suppression and investigation of crimes.

B. Defendant B, while having to file a petition for the above A at the above date, at the above time and place, did not look at the police officer’s request that the police officer sent out of the police box, and carried out the above police officer’s physical fighting with him by hand, such as pushing G with the police officer who belongs to the Seoul Southern Police Station Estation.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the suppression and investigation of crimes.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the evidence adopted by the Defendant A and the following circumstances known as the result of the instant trial, it is difficult to believe only the only direct evidence of the police officer G as is, and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant engaged in obstruction of the performance of official duties, such as smuggling G in his/her hand, as shown in the facts charged. There is no other evidence.

① According to the letter of arrest of a flagrant offender, only includes that Defendant A was able to avoid drinking, such as taking a bath and drinking alcohol, but does not include the following facts in the crime.

(2) On the screen of CCTV to capture a police box, there seems to be no sponsing or assaulting a police officer, except for the sponsed by Defendant A (the sponsed pages).

It is an example that there is no most important violence scene in the photo of the video-feasing.

(3)