1. The facts charged of the instant case are as follows: “The Defendant sent a bath to the police officer Nonindicted 1 on November 19, 201, 01, 01:40, Jungdong-dong, Jungdong-gu, Seoul, and 449, and Nonindicted 1 arrested the Defendant as an offender in the crime of insult, and tried to drive the patrol vehicle after going to the back of the patrol vehicle, the Defendant took a bath to Nonindicted 1, and obstructed Nonindicted 1’s legitimate execution of duties regarding the arrest of the flagrant offender in consideration of Nonindicted 1’s face at the face of Nonindicted 1.”

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below maintained the judgment of acquittal of the court of first instance on the grounds that the defendant's act does not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties on the ground that the non-indicted 1, a police officer, was arrested the defendant as an offender in the crime of insult, and did not have an opportunity to defend himself/herself without stating that he/she only notified the summary of the crime, and did not appoint a defense counsel. Thus, it cannot be deemed legitimate performance of official duties, and it cannot be said that the defendant was given an opportunity to defend him/her without delay after he/she controlled the defendant when he/she was deemed to have been tried to drive immediately after carrying out the patrol. Thus, it does not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties on the ground that he/she took a bath or assault against the non-indicted 1 by rejecting it, and there

However, the first instance court and the lower court stated that the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted by the Defendant: ① Nonindicted 2, who was arrested as a flagrant offender at the time of the instant case due to assault, signed and sealed by the Central Franc Police Station with Nonindicted 1’s signature and seal (attached documents of the notice of arrest), stated that “The summary of the suspected crime, the reason for arrest, and the opportunity to request the examination of legality of the arrest, are given; and the defendant’s signature and seal is confirmed.” On the other hand, the written confirmation of the same content is that the Defendant refused to affix the seal; ② the arrest of the Defendant merely stated that “the Defendant arrested Nonindicted 1 who was on the duty of arresting the Defendant as an insulting crime, such as obstruction of the performance of official duties, the appointment of an attorney-at-law, and the arrest of the flagrant offender after being informed of the suspect’s right to the arrest of the flagrant offender, and that there was no possibility that Nonindicted 1 would have made a statement on the arrest of the Defendant at the last time, even if the same time as the police did not properly known the possibility of the arrest.

Furthermore, according to the evidence, the defendant, under the influence of alcohol at the time of arrest, appears to have been in violent state, such as breathing, breathing and destroying breathing, etc., as he was refused to accept the cell phone at the time of arrest. ② Nonindicted 2, the police officer, stating that “the defendant was unable to take a serious bath for a long time to a police officer,” the defendant sent the police officer later at two sites, c) the police gear use report (in 12 pages of investigation record), stated that “The defendant was 10 minutes for more than 10 times, and was unable to take a serious bath for a police officer to use the breathy, etc., by making it difficult for him to use the breathy in light of the fact that he was unable to take the breathy and breathing opportunity for a police officer to take aboard the patrol, and that Nonindicted 1 made it difficult for him to use the breathy by making it difficult for him to take the breath of the police officer.”

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)