The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) H’s statement, the defendant’s body is recognized to be sealed by the police officer G.

The defendant's act of preventing a police officer from boarding by closing the patrol car constitutes violence that may interfere with the public official's duties.

2. Determination

A. H, which controlled the designated lane violation by carrying the body of police officers as well as the victim G, by carrying out the same group as that of the police officers who walked in the patrol lane, was obstructed by the lower court’s “G patrol road” in the court below’s trial, the Defendant’s shouldered and continued to be pushed in when she walked on the patrol lane.

“The statement was made.”

However, H did not mention at all the defendant's act of smuggling when making a statement at the police.

G In the police, “after the closure of the patrol car, the Defendant was pushed down his shoulder.”

Unlike H, “The Defendant stated to the effect that it was “,” and in the court of the court of the lower trial, there was no act that would obstruct the performance of official duties when “the Defendant closed the patrol gate.”

“The statement was made.”

The screen image of patrol cars does not appear in the face of the defendant being sealed.

Considering these circumstances, H’s legal statement cannot be reliable, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a shoulder that the Defendant shouldered with G as stated in the facts charged.

B. It is recognized that G police officers’ failure to open the patrol car door and close open doors by the Defendant who attempted to open the patrol car constitutes an assault to interfere with the performance of official duties.

However, such an act is nothing more than closed in the process of continuing to resist the control of the designated lane violation by G. G and H only arrested the Defendant as an insulting offense but did not mention any interference with the execution of official duties.

Considering this point, it is difficult to see the defendant's act as an assault, and it is about the traffic control of police officers.