The judgment below

Among them, the part of innocence on interference with the performance of official duties shall be reversed.

This case against the defendant.

1. Where there are several orders of the judgment, such as partial conviction, partial acquittal, etc., on the case prosecuted at the same time as concurrent crimes within the scope of the judgment of this court, the part included in the one order can be appealed separately from other parts and the part not appealed by both parties becomes final and conclusive separately, and where only the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below which rendered a judgment of not guilty or partially guilty on the part of concurrent crimes, the part of the judgment of the court below which found the defendant and the prosecutor not appealed shall be prosecuted on the part of the judgment of not guilty which became final and conclusive by the expiration of the appeal period and continued to the appellate court. Thus, the part of the judgment of not guilty shall be reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1402, Jan. 21, 1992, etc.). According to the records, the court below found the defendant guilty on the part of the facts charged of this case, and found the defendant not guilty on the part of the judgment of not guilty.

Therefore, since the part of conviction which was not appealed by both parties is already separated or finalized, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the portion of innocence (the point of obstructing the execution of official duties) by the prosecutor.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal assaulted police officers, thereby obstructing their legitimate performance of duties.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the judgment.

3. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor’s ex officio, the prosecutor applied for permission to amend the indictment to the effect that the prosecutor changed the facts charged under this part of the facts charged as stated in paragraph 1 from among “the fact that the prosecutor re-written the facts charged,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.