Defendant

All of the appeal filed by A and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor against Defendant B shall be dismissed.

Defendant

The lower court against A and the lower court.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A did not take a bath to the police officer F at the time of the instant case, but did not take a bath to the victim, whether it is a police officer who does not know about the victim.

“............” is merely an expression to the effect.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of the insult of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The prosecutor (as to Defendant B), Defendant A was a foreigner and did not have a foreigner registration certificate at the time of the instant case, and did not have any witness to the offense of insult by Defendant A except for the police officer F, since there was no witness to the offense of insult by Defendant A, it is legitimate for a police officer to arrest Defendant A as a current offender. Defendant B’s act of assaulting a police officer who was arrested in flagrant offender, constitutes interference with the performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B of the obstruction of performing official duties in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion, i.e., F., the victim police officer F, as the victim, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant A’s “Seman gue, Maki,”

Is Doz. Doz.

“To the extent that they were able to take a bath as described above.”

Defendant A had consistently made a statement, and police officers at the same time also testified that Defendant A made the aforementioned bath.

Since Defendant A expressed his statement to the police officer F as stated in the facts charged, Defendant A expressed his desire as stated in the facts charged, Defendant A’s daily act, even though Defendant B, who was a police officer, paid the money at the request of the police officer, appears to arrest Defendant A as a current offender. ③ Customer I present at the court of the original instance, and Defendant A present at the time of the instant case, clearly memorys that Defendant A appeared to have presented the above bath to the victim at the time of the instant case.