The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Northern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In relation to obstruction of the performance of official duties, the term “Assault” includes not only the exercise of direct tangible power against public officials, but also the exercise of indirect tangible power (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do662, May 12, 1998, etc.). 2. The lower court, based on the following facts in its reasoning, comprehensively based on the following facts, committed assault against police officers exceeding the degree of power by itself in light of the contents of the Defendants’ act, the location and situation of police officers at the time of the act, and the duration during which the Defendants’ act continued.

The court determined that it could not be said.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the lower court.

① During the report process F, the Defendants sent back with other police officers upon receiving 112 a report that “the Defendants’ failure without paying the drinking value at the main point.” During the report process, the Defendants did not want to pay the drinking value, and did not want to punish the main place of business, thereby soliciting the Defendants to return home.

However, the Defendants, without complying with this, expressed that “I am unable to do so and I am unable to do so to police officers, I am bling off with the main point.”

② The defect that police officers F et al. want to depart from the patrol car with the police officers F et al. going out of the main place and getting out of the patrol car, Defendant A, “Is itself whether this police branch's balke kis, and so on, the balke f

“At the end of the patrol, the patrol did not start by putting his body to the right side of the patrol vehicle, putting him to the right side of the patrol vehicle, and then putting him to the front side of the patrol vehicle.

③ The Defendant B obstructed Defendant B from proceeding with the 15 minutes patrol vehicle, including the blicker’s door on the blicks of the patrol vehicle and the front part of the glass, on which the blicker’s blick was placed adjacent to the Defendant A.

(4) At the time.