공무집행방해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal by the police officer H, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize that he had obstructed police officers from performing their official duties while taking a bath to H by a police officer, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On August 25, 2013, at around 02:30 on August 25, 2013, the Defendant: (a) drinking alcohol along with DF charging points located in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, with F, etc., where E was seated in the table table above the line of view; (b) the Defendant: (c) took a scopic knife from the scopic H (41) of the Kimcheon Police Station G police box called up upon receiving a report at around 02:50 on the same day; (d) took a scopic scopic knife from the slope H (41) where E was dispatched; and (e) took a scopic scopic knife of trees located above H; and (e) took an assault by the Defendant, by reporting the above H’s arrest of the above flagrant offender, and harming the Defendant “h’s desire to do so.”
Accordingly, the defendant in collusion with E interfered with the maintenance of police officers' order and legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders.
B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) there is a witness’s written statement in the lower court and the police statement in the lower court as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case; and (b) the police and the lower court consistently made a consistent statement that the Defendant committed an act of threatening the police officer one time while taking a bath to the police officer; (c) the following circumstances acknowledged by the record: (a) the Defendant made a statement that he did not have any hump any fact from the police to this court; (b) the F, which was E and Silver, stated in this court that the Defendant took a bath to the police officer or hump to the police officer; (c) the employee I of the Durced point, who was an employee of this court, stated that only the fact that the Defendant took a bath or hump to the police officer, is memory, without memory; (d) the employee I of D