All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

The lower court found the Defendants guilty only on the violation of the Road Traffic Act against Defendant A among the facts charged in the instant case, and acquitted the Defendants on the remaining facts charged.

The prosecutor only filed an appeal against the acquittal portion, and the defendant A did not file an appeal.

Therefore, since the judgment of the court below's conviction against Defendant A is separately confirmed, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the acquittal part against the Defendants.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

A. The police officer who is engaged in the part concerning Defendant A and C requires the suspension to Defendant A, who is deemed to have committed a traffic offense as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act, and confirming his identity at the site is a legitimate traffic control work due to the execution of duties for the payment of penalty.

Meanwhile, as long as Defendant A did not comply with the police officer’s request for confirmation of identity, even if Defendant A does not constitute an offender subject to notification of penalty payment, and is subject to request for summary trial under Article 165(1) of the Road Traffic Act, in order for a police officer to proceed with the procedure of request for summary trial, Defendant A’s identity or domicile must be confirmed. Thus, the police officer’s request for confirmation of identity of Defendant A constitutes legitimate performance of duties as part of traffic control affairs

However, it is reasonable to view the police officer's act as a police officer's act within the scope of legitimate performance of official duties, since the police officer could arrest Defendant A whose residence was not confirmed due to the police officer's failure to comply with the police officer's request for confirmation of identity.

Defendant

A continued to proceed without stopping police officers' warning broadcasting, and Defendant B, a member of the Dong, was mobilized.