The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendants conspired to commit violence to police officers G and interfere with legitimate performance of duties.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged was around 00:38, July 4, 2015, the Defendants: (a) arrested the Defendants as a flagrant offender of the assault case and attempted to take aboard the patrol vehicle by arresting the Defendants as a person in charge of the assault case, and requested the Defendant A to take the name in which he escaped; (b) francing the Defendant’s chest part of G on two occasions, fating the fat, fating the fat, fat, and fating the fat, and fating the fat of G. B in combination with the Defendant B.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the G 112 reported case and the arrest of flagrant offenders.

B. The lower court determined that the evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged lies in G’s investigative agency and the court of the lower court’s partial statement and H’s legal statement, but the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, namely, ① Defendant A has sold in the process of resisting the reason for arrest without being informed of the reason for arrest, and there was no assault as stated in the facts charged, and Defendant B has different arguments from that of the facts charged, and ② Defendant B has stated that “Defendant B did not interfere with or engage in any act by a police officer” at the investigative agency (in the form of 64 pages of the investigation record), and the court of the lower court also stated that “A was faced by the Defendant B and the police officer.” The police officer and the Defendants stated that “I would know of who the Defendants were the Defendants, although they seem to wear clothes in the process,” and that “I would have abused the Defendants,” and that “A” in the court of the lower judgment.