The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The act of obstructing the progress of patrol vehicles by the defendant is considered as an act of obstructing the execution of official duties as an indirect exercise of force against police officers.

Judgment

The purpose of the Criminal Act, separate from interference with the performance of official duties, is to punish public officials only when they interfere with the execution of official duties by means of violence, intimidation, or deceptive scheme against public officials (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4166, Nov. 19, 2009). The assault of interference with the performance of official duties is an act of exercising illegal tangible power against public officials, and is not directly or indirectly or indirectly, but it should be against public officials executing official duties, and it should be able to interfere with the performance of official duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9020, Mar. 16, 2007). According to the video (Evidence No. 17 No. 9020, Mar. 16, 2007), the following facts can be acknowledged.

At around 23:04, the Defendant taken the front of the patrol vehicle with a Handphone in front of the patrol vehicle, and followed the patrol vehicle, followed by a handphone in front of the patrol vehicle, and continued to take the Handphone in front of the patrol vehicle, and subsequently, the patrol vehicle cannot move to the seat of the driver.

Until 23:11, the Defendant was going on the side of the patrol vehicle's driver's seat, and was led to two police officers in India, and the Defendant started to operate the patrol vehicle again by one police officer aboard the patrol vehicle.

The Defendant re-entered the driver's seat while making a stop on the 23:13 police officers, but was able to drive the patrol vehicle again by two police officers around 23:15, and the police officers who driven the patrol vehicle were also driving the patrol vehicle.

The defendant is going to talk with three police officers until 23:18, and talks about a road.