공무집행방해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main points of the grounds for appeal are legitimate execution of duties by the police officers who let the defendant out of the police box, and the defendant can fully recognize the fact that the court intentionally interfere with the execution of duties, such as the entries in the facts charged, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles
2. Determination
A. At around 00:00 on March 8, 2014, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) A, the Defendant’s daily election, was boarding a cab operated by Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Hongdong-dong, Hongdong-dong, to go back to the back alley; (b) however, D was unable to find a destination properly; (c) the head side part of the taxi was destroyed by a car.
A around 00:26 on March 8, 2014, at the police box of the Seoul Western Police Station located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, considered D to be a person who reported and destroyed a taxi to prepare a written statement after visiting the above police box in order to have the escape after destroying property and lost the mobile phone, and to search for it.
Accordingly, the police officer I, etc., who belongs to the above police box, sited A as a suspect.
When the Defendant was arrested by A at a police box at around 00:28 on the same day, the Defendant continued to have the police officers engage in the criminal investigation, etc. of police officers by demanding that the police officers “shall not have any relation to the case, and go out of the entrance,” and obstructed the police officers from performing their legitimate duties in relation to the criminal investigation, etc. by demanding that they go out of the entrance.”
B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the instant facts charged constituted a case where there is no proof of crime.
A, the Defendant’s one-way driving at around 00:00 on March 8, 2014, when getting off from a taxi operated by D, lost his mobile phone devices in the course of walking the front side of the taxi in the taxi due to his/her navigation, and the Defendant around 00:23 at the beginning of 20 seconds on the same day.