The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On February 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) received 112 reports while working as a taxi engineer and a taxi fare in front of the Eunpyeong-gu B building on the street; (b) on February 23, 2018, the Defendant: (c) obstructed the legitimate performance of duties by police officers in relation to public security activities by preventing police officers, such as Police Officers, from going to the scene only after having handled the taxi engineer, and going to the scene on a instant occasion; and (d) preventing police officers, such as Police Officers, from going to the scene on a sudden basis; and (e) preventing them from going to the scene for about five minutes in front of the patrol vehicle operated by D.

2. The crime of interference with the execution of official duties is a requirement for the formation of assault or intimidation, and the case by force, etc. which does not reach such requirement is not subject to the formation requirement.

The purpose of the Criminal Act, separate from interference with the performance of official duties, is to punish a person who interferes with the performance of official duties by means of violence, intimidation, or deceptive scheme against public officials with respect to official duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4166, Nov. 19, 2009). Meanwhile, in the context of interference with the performance of official duties, the term “Assault” includes not only the exercise of direct tangible power against public officials, but also the exercise of indirect tangible power (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do960, Mar. 30, 2017). However, it is so, the purport of the Criminal Act is to punish a person who interferes with the performance of official duties by means of violence, intimidation, or deceptive scheme against public officials.

Even if they refer to the exercise of physical force, and the exercise of physical force refers to the physical force that causes physical pain (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5716, Jan. 10, 2003, etc.). According to the evidence submitted, in particular, according to the field video CD, the Defendant resisted the police officer who tried to leave the scene after the process of the 112 case at the time of the instant case, and demanded the police officer to leave the police station to leave the scene, and there is a request for a police officer to leave the police box to leave the scene, and the police officer recommended the Defendant to return home to the police station and embark on the patrol vehicle.