The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the sentence shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. A summary of the grounds for appeal ① The intention to request assistance to find belongings was merely the intention to do so, and there was no intention to interfere with the work.

(2) spits, spits or spits are not spits or spits against police officers with intent to obstruct the performance of official duties.

Since the defendant's act is not a passive exercise of the active tangible power, it is not a crime of obstructing the execution of official duties.

(3) The punishment sentenced by the original sentence (one year of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) shall be too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the obstruction of business, the Defendant was trying to request assistance in searching for the goods, and there was no purpose to interfere with business.

The argument is asserted.

In the light of CCTV images, it is confirmed that there is a face to look at the surface of the entrance of the defendant, and the side of the container when the defendant stores the personal belongings at the floor.

Witness

C. The testimony of F is consistent with the contents of the above film.

In full view of the testimony of CCTV images and witnesses, there was an intention of the Defendant to obstruct the business.

The defendant's assertion is not accepted because it is not visible to request assistance in finding possessions, such as the defendant's assertion.

B. As to interference with the execution of official duties, the Defendant’s spits are not spits against the police officers with the intention of obstructing the execution of official duties, but does not constitute a crime of interference with the execution of official duties merely because the Defendant’s act is a passive resistance.

The argument is asserted.

The police officer F made a statement and in the protocol and in the court “in the statement,” and the Defendant was sealed the police officer called “in the presence of the Defendant.” Until the Defendant was arrested, the Defendant spited or spited on the floor by intentionally spiting the spit of the Defendant’s spiting or unspiting the Defendant’s spiting the Defendant’s spiting of the spit, but gave a warning to that effect

In light of the record of the investigation report, the Defendant arrived at the police box and locked, and shouldered by the party.

The situation of the city is not memory.