The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The accused of the grounds for appeal does not assault a police officer;

In addition, police officers at the time were not in lawful performance of their duties.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that there was no assault by a police officer.

However, in light of the statements of the victimized police officer and the statements of the taxi engineer who was witness at the time, as stated in the court below, it is recognized that the defendant took a bath or assault against the police officer as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In the statement of grounds of appeal, the Defendant asserted that the police officer’s act does not constitute obstruction of the performance of official duties as the police officer violated the prohibition of unfairly intervening in civil disputes.

Article 10 of the Regulations on the Service of Police Officers provides that "police officers shall not unfairly intervene in any civil dispute over another person by taking advantage of their positions or ex officio."

However, according to the records, the damaged police officer sent out after receiving 112 reports that "if there is a sight," and when the police officer demanded the defendant to present his/her identification card, it is recognized that the defendant refused to do so and used the police officer to assault him/her.

In light of these circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the act of the victimized police officer at the time was unfairly involved in the other person's civil dispute by taking advantage of his position or official authority. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.