The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although the police officer, who tried to conduct search by boarding the Defendant’s vehicle to regulate or arrest the Defendant who carried out illegal passenger transport services, the police officer’s performance of duties is called “legal performance of official duties,” the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on a different premise, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

On April 30, 2014, on April 30, 2014, the Defendant: (a) driven a four-lane road in front of the Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul building; and (b) parked a DNA car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”); (c) stopped on four-lanes for the purpose of commercial transport, and (d) opened a front window and opened a pedestrian and interested parties.

The victim F (the age of 48) who is a slope belonging to the Seoul Shin Police Station E (the police box) discovered it, and there was a need to search the defendant by boarding the defendant's vehicle to arrest the defendant in the act of committing an offense, and accordingly, he opened the back seat and opened the left seat inside the vehicle, and carried the body into the vehicle.

For the purpose of avoiding arrest, the Defendant immediately launched a vehicle and caused the victim to enter the left part of the vehicle on the road, leaving the door of the vehicle on the road, leading about about 5 meters of the vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant, using a car, which is a dangerous object, interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the control of crimes, and led the victim to a multi-lock in need of medical treatment for about two weeks.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal is examined ex officio, the prosecutor applied for the modification of the indictment with the content that the facts charged in this case are modified as follows, and the bottom part is changed.

The judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission.

Thus, the court below's judgment is above.