공무집행방해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The prosecutor of the grounds for appeal asserts that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since it is difficult to view that the defendant had exercised the tangible power on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor despite the fact that the defendant obstructed the performance of official duties by walking the face of police officer G by walking the face of police officer G, and even if the defendant exercised the tangible power on the family, it constitutes a justifiable act stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act and thus
2. Determination
A. The Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case was D, opposing the construction of the smuggling 765kV transmission line, and around November 19, 2013, around 16:25, the head of the group of the group at the 4:55-ro Myeonyang-si, Dongyang-si, the 56-ro Myeonyang-si, to the construction site of the transmission tower at the 55-ro Myeonyangyang-si, and the police officer intended to remove and remove the fence in order to prevent the police from entering the road. The Defendant asserted against this, and the Defendant continued to comply with the Defendant’s request for the prohibition of interference with the police officer’s passage over several times, and the Defendant did not comply with the request to the large tree fence, thereby obstructing the police officer, etc. belonging to the Gyeongnam Provincial Police Agency and female police officers (age 36 years and women) from moving to the road on the ground of the Defendant, and the Defendant interfered with the legitimate exercise of his duty.
B. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.
C. The burden of proving the facts charged in a 1-related criminal trial is to be borne by a public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on strict evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have the truth of the facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the Defendant is guilty.