In addition, even though the defendant did not interfere with the hotel business, the police officer tried to force the defendant to commit a crime, and therefore actively resisting the police officer. At that time, it cannot be said that police officers were performing legitimate official duties, and that police officers did not commit violence as stated in the judgment of the court below.

2. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the grounds for appeal, the defendant interfered with the hotel business by committing 40 minutes in cash under the influence of alcohol in order to receive a notice from the employee in charge on the part of the victim's opening room in the street room room around December 18, 2013, and upon receiving a report from the police officer dispatched upon receipt of 112 to leave from the hotel hotel, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant assaulted the police officer as described in the facts charged.

On the other hand, the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is premised on the legitimate performance of official duties by public officials. Whether the performance of official duties by public officials belonging to abstract authority is legitimate is determined objectively and reasonably based on specific circumstances at the time of the act, and it is not determined in pure objective criteria

Likewise, the legality of the arrest of a flagrant offender should be objectively determined based on the specific situation at the time of arrest, and it should not be based on whether it is recognized as an ex post facto offender.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Do4763, Aug. 23, 2013). In this case, a police officer, upon receiving a report from the victim, called up to the victim and passing the Defendant’s high sex, shall operate a hotel business.