The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged: (a) on October 1, 2016, the Defendant: (b) 22:05 on the street in the front of D in the wife population C; (c) the Defendant was faced with F and the shoulder of E while walking together with E on the street in front of D in the wife population C; and (d) on the one hand, the Defendant was able to go beyond the road because the police officer assigned to the G police box in the Yongsan-dong Police Station in the Yongsan-dong Police Station in the Republic of Korea, in receipt of a report 112, sent the Defendant after having received the report, H was tight to arrest E

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender by a police officer.

2. The Defendant asserts that police officers do not have any secret character.

As duly examined evidence, H, a party to a breadth, does not have any assaulted against the defendant in this court.

However, it was beyond the floor in the process of taking the locks.

It was beyond E and vagabonds.

The defendant is not memory that he is provoking of himself.

It is not clear that the defendant was well aware of himself.

“The statement is made to the effect that “A police officer had no physical contact with the Defendant” in this Court (see H’s statement, it cannot be ruled out that the likelihood of being pushed and tightly cut in the course of arresting E), and ② “A police officer had no physical contact with the Defendant.”

The defendant, who was arrested by himself, was far away.

“A statement is made to the effect that “A police officer was assaulted by any means” by the investigative agency, and ③ the way at which the scene was at the time of the incident was assaulted by a police officer by any means.

the question may be accurately known.

In light of the fact that the prosecutor stated, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor proves that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the defendant had a police officer go beyond his/her old age.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant is acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.