As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3, it is reasonable for police officers to voluntarily act with the police station to ask questions about personal information, etc. to a person who has considerable reason to suspect that the police officers committed a crime after receiving a report on a crime. Thus, if an assault was committed against this, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties should be established. In the same regard, the court below's decision maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which recognized the charges of obstruction of performance of official duties against the defendant is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the act of legitimate performance of official duties, and according to the reasoning of the original judgment, it is obvious that the court below rejected the defendant's assertion as to a legitimate act, and there is no violation of the provisions

As to ground of appeal No. 2

It is reasonable to view that an interrogation protocol of a suspect prepared for handling affairs by a judicial police officer is a document used by a public office under Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act even if it is not effective as an official document because it is complete, complete, and the suspect's signature and seal or seal, and thus it is not effective as an official document. In the same purport, the court below's decision that the court below applied Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act to the so-called defendant who has impaired the usefulness of the suspect interrogation protocol prepared for handling affairs by a judicial police officer is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the object of the crime of destroying

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-su (Presiding Justice)