The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The police officer F, who was dispatched after being reported 112 of the summary of the grounds for appeal, returned G to his match without investigating the refusal to take passengers G from a taxi engineer. This is not a legitimate performance of official duties, and the defendant's act does not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(1) On June 6, 2012, the Defendant was boarding a taxi driven by G with a new wall border and caused G and horse fighting.

(2) G reported to 112 that passengers are driving on the taxi, and the police officer F arrived at the taxi. At the time, the Defendant and G were working on the horse match.

(3) G made a statement to F to the effect that “Defendant continued to take a bath in the taxi and reported the same as the accident was the same.” There is no big damage, thereby getting off the taxi and getting off the taxi site, and the Defendant made a statement to F to the effect that “G rejected boarding.”

(4) F announced that the Defendant could report to Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and used the Defendant’s home home.

(5) As indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant assaulted, such as plucking, plucking, plucking, etc., a patrol car, and plucking, plucking, etc. F.

B. The judgment F is called out after receiving 112 reports to the effect that passengers are driving in the taxi, and the G and the Defendant are able to return home to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the Defendant’s refusal to take passengers in the taxi. This is a legitimate performance of official duties.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per