The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On September 16, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 16, 19:00, at the E apartment building 101-dong 902, Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Defendant’s residence; (b) at the corridor No. 101-dong 902, F, the executive officer of the Seoul Southern District Court, issued a payment order by disclosing his/her identity; (c) was aware of the fact that F, by hand, was pushed down the lower part of F; and (d) assault the Defendant by booming his/her car with his/her hand, thereby hindering the legitimate execution of his/her duties regarding the service

2. According to the records, the prosecutor charged the above facts charged with interference with the execution of official duties under Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and this is established when the public official who performs legitimate duties commits assault or intimidation. The above F is not an execution officer but a general worker who is not a public official, and F has found the mixed defendant's residence at the time of delivery of the above payment order, and the execution officer who is the subject of the service was not a public official, has found the mixed defendant's residence at the time of delivery of the above payment order. The execution officer directly deals with the service, he cannot directly have the clerk handle the service, and cannot have the clerk directly handle the service, and this service is illegal, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the defendant's assault committed F, as stated in the facts charged in this case, constitutes the exercise of tangible power against the public official, or his duty was legitimate, without reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the defendant does not consent to the public notice of the judgment of innocence, and thus the summary of the judgment of innocence is not publicly announced pursuant to the proviso of Article 58