2. The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is established by assault or intimidation against a public official performing his duties. The assault at this time is an act of exercising an unlawful tangible power against a public official, which is either directly or indirectly, or not, and the assault is against a public official performing his duties by nature, and such assault is against a public official performing his duties and is likely to interfere with the performance of his duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do13968, Jun. 24, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the police officer was able to take the lock to hand over the defendant's birth to the police station, and the defendant was able to take the shoulder part of the police officer's life at one time (this is consistent with the court below's judgment and the court below's statement by the defendant). The above act by the defendant is an unlawful and direct tangible force against a police officer, and thus, constitutes a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal of this case is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.