피고인은 자신은 안전벨트를 착용하고 있음에도 정차를 요구받은 것에 화가 나, 경사 F에게 “눈 삣나 나도 병원에 가는데 바쁜데 이 새끼”라고 말을 하였고, 이에 경사 F가 “잘못 볼 수도 있지 말이 심한 것 아니냐”라고 대답함으로써 서로 시비가 붙게 되었다.

Accordingly, the Defendant set off from the driver’s seat and interfered with legitimate execution of duties in relation to the traffic control of the slopeF, a police official for about 15 minutes on the part of the Defendant, such as: (a) he she saw that the police officer had this dogb; (b) he sheed this franc police officer; and (c) her hand francing the franc’s franc with the franc’s franc, and reporting on the left-hand side of the F by drinking at one time.

2. Determination

A. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Code is established only when the execution of official duties is legitimate. Here, legitimate performance of official duties refers to not only the abstract authority of a public official, but also the case meeting the legal requirements and methods concerning specific performance of official duties. Thus, even if the act of assault or intimidation against the public official performing the act of lack of legitimacy, it cannot be deemed that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is established.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4731, Oct. 28, 2005). Meanwhile, whether a public official’s performance of official duties is legitimate ought to be determined objectively and reasonably based on the specific circumstances at the time of the act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4721, Apr. 28, 2011). B.

The evidence presented in this Court alone carries out the legitimate performance of official duties at that time by the slopeF.