A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, nor did he take a fluence of the victimized police officer.

However, although the police officer's chest was friendly once, the police officer's act of stopping the defendant does not constitute "prevention of a crime" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and thus cannot be viewed as legitimate performance of official duties. Thus, even if the defendant resisted against it, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is not established.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the defendant was voluntarily accompanied by the taxi engineer and sweeted to the district to investigate but the investigation was not conducted due to sweet, and thus, the defendant was taken measures for returning home. In other words, police officers who are likely to go to the sweet to go to the sweet and the sweet to the sweet of the sweet of the sweet of the sweet of the sweet of the sweet of the sweet of the sweak and the sweet of the sweet of the sweet of the sweet of the sweet of the sweet of the sweet of the sweet of the sweet of the s

In addition, in light of the fact that the defendant did not return home immediately from the earth zone and re-enter the taxi office, the act of the police officer in the above paragraph 2 constitutes the "prevention of crime" as stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Execution of Duties by Police Officers.

Therefore, the facts charged against the defendant can be fully recognized, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous as alleged by the defendant.