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

1. 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2013. 2. 2. 01:40경 서울 영등포구 D에 있는 ‘E’ 클럽에서, 폭행 사건이 발생하였다는 112 신고를 받고 출동한 서울영등포경찰서 F지구대 소속 G 경위가 피고인의 일행인 H을 현행범 체포하려고 하자 “개새끼야, 짭새는 다 똑같아, 너 같은 놈들은 잘라 버릴 거야, 병신 새끼들”이라고 욕설을 하면서 손으로 G의 멱살을 잡아 흔들어 경찰관의 112 신고 업무 등에 관한 정당한 직무 집행을 방해하였다.

2. Determination

A. Generally, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Code is established only when the performance of official duties is legitimate. Here, legitimate performance of official duties refers to not only where the act belongs to the abstract authority of the public official, but also where the act satisfies the legal requirements and methods concerning specific performance of official duties. Thus, even if the act of assault was committed against the public official performing the act of lacking legitimacy, it cannot be viewed as the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Do506 delivered on May 22, 1992, etc.). B.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following circumstances are recognized.

① At the investigation agency, G asked to whom I would have been aware of the fact that the Defendant was assaulted by a person who was drinking alcohol, and asked to whom I would have been arrested as a flagrant offender on the spot. However, at the court, G entered the room after hearing the statement that the Defendant was assaulted by a person who was unsatisfying on the corridor after having arrived at the scene. At the same time, G was arrested as a flagrant offender in the crime of assault. At the first place, G asked whether the Defendant, who was mixed in the room, was assaulted by I, was arrested as a flagrant offender in the crime of assault. However, H was asked at the first place.