The judgment below

The guilty portion against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty.

1. The lower court found guilty on the charge of obstructing the performance of official duties among the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced to the dismissal judgment on the charge of assault, and the part on which the prosecution was dismissed was appealed only by the Defendant, and the prosecutor did not appeal on the dismissal portion of the public prosecution, thereby separating and finalizing this part.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the violation of the above official duties sentenced to conviction.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) arresting B (joint defendant of the court below) who is an employee of the defendant as an offender in the crime of insult does not meet the requirements for arrest of an offender in the crime of insult and does not meet such procedural requirements as not only did the requirements for arrest but also did not notify the principle of disturbance. Thus, the illegality of the defendant's act of threatening a police officer against lawful performance of official duties constitutes legitimate defense and thus, it is dismissed.

2. Determination

A. On September 5, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 21:10 on September 5, 2016, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (b) the police officer belonging to the police station belonging to the Gyeongsan Police Station G police box called out after receiving a report from the F station located in Sinsan-si; and (c) the Defendant told the Defendant to assault the Defendant by fasting the left shoulder part of the victim I’s left shoulder; and (d) took a bath to the said H, carried out the part of the said H’s arms on several occasions with the right shoulder, chest, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers related to criminal investigation.

B. The lower court also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court held that ① the police officer’s arrival of the police officer H in the gas station and verification of the situation to B (joint Defendant of the lower court’s judgment) who is an employee of the Defendant, B provided a bath to H, and that if H intended to do so, the lower court may be punished.

In spite of the warning several times, the Defendants arrested B as a flagrant offender in the crime of insult, and ② the Defendants.