공무집행방해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal lies in credibility in the statements of D and E, which correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, and the recording of recording and CCTV images conform to the statements of D and E, and it is sufficient to view that the Defendant committed the Defendant’s assault to the extent that the Defendant interfered with the police officer’s performance of official duties, as long as the Defendant was satisfing the police officer D and body fighting.
Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.
2. On May 10, 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a report from the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment parking lot; (b) taken a substitute engineer and a substitute engineer into a mobile phone of the Defendant; and (c) requested the Defendant to delete the video from the victim D (the age of 60) who is the circumstances leading to the Seoul Western Police Station C District, the Seoul Western Police Station C District to remove the video on the cell phone; and (d) carried the victim’s arms and body by cutting them over the floor.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties by police officers on 112 mobilization tasks.
3. Determination
A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the following grounds that the instant facts charged constituted a case where there is no proof of crime.
1. Each statement of D and E, which seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, is not believed in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by CCTV image data: (i) the police’s statement and the statement in the court are considerably inconsistent with each other; and (ii) the following circumstances recognized by CCTV image data, namely, it is difficult to believe in light of the fact that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was behind the Defendant, who caused the occurrence of the Defendant’s body, and at the same time, caused the occurrence of the said body, and then caused the Defendant
D It is difficult to believe that the content of recording files, CDs, and recording notes are recognized by CCTV video data, in light of the above circumstances.
In addition, the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant gets the arms of D and was closely involved.