The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The police officer resisted the police officer's desire to take on the vehicle, and the police officer first expressed his desire to do so, and there is only a ppuri fact that the police officer sent the defendant a secret, and the defendant tried to arrest him.

B. Since the control duties of police officers are terminated after a notice of penalty notice is issued to an acting engineer, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties cannot be established against the public official performing the duties.

C. The sentencing of the lower court (a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The police officer D made a decision of mistake of facts in the context of traffic disorder control and issued a notice of a penalty payment to the driver at the time of the instant case while serving in traffic disorder control, and the Defendant continued to put the police officer in his/her will. Upon completing the written notice, the Defendant left his/her vehicle and continued his/her desire to keep the Defendant in mind and body. The Defendant continued to arrest the flagrant offender even though other police officers issued a warning that he/she could be arrested in the act of committing the crime.

L, an acting engineer, stated in the police phone investigation that “the police officer did not take a desire, and the defendant continued to control his desire, was a little conspiracy of fakes when he terminated,” and in conformity with D’s statement about the attitude of the defendant and the police officer before making a release from the vehicle.

On the other hand, while denying the crime in the police investigation, the Defendant began to claim that the police officer was pushed the Defendant on his body while the police officer was carrying a vessel on his body, but the police officer was pushed the Defendant on his ship.

If the video taken after notification of the domination principle for arrest, it seems that the defendant seems that he will keep the police officer's desire to do so by inserting his hand on the hand.

3.2