Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. On February 23, 2018, the Defendant, at around 01:40 on the street in front of the building B in Eunpyeong-gu, sent out after receiving a report of 112, while taking the issue of taxi articles and taxi fares, obstructed the legitimate performance of duties by police officers in relation to public security activities by preventing police officers, including police officers, who were called out after receiving a report, from going through the 112 police officers, from going to the scene only after going through the taxi articles and going to the scene, and going to leave the scene on a sudden basis.

B. The court below determined based on its adopted evidence that the defendant resisted to the police officer who intends to leave the scene after handling the 112 case at the time of the instant case, and demanded the police officer to leave the scene to leave the scene, and that the police officer asked him/her to leave the patrol box; the defendant, who is the defect in the police officer, recommended the defendant to invalid to the defendant before the patrol vehicle and to leave the patrol vehicle, obstructed the patrol vehicle in front of the patrol vehicle, moved to the chief of the patrol vehicle to the front of the patrol vehicle, and told the police officer in the patrol vehicle that he/she would take on his/her own (at that time, the windows and doors of the patrol vehicle all were closed), and the defendant interfered with the progress of the patrol for about five minutes as above; and the defendant cannot be seen as an act of interference with the passage of the patrol vehicle by considering the whole process of exercising his/her direct and indirect power as well as the process of exercising the patrol vehicle.