The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On April 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) in D Gameland in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, on April 20, 2015, the Defendant: (b) notified the Defendant of an urgent search and seizure of the boxes containing a game machine disc in which E, a police officer affiliated with the Daejeon-gu National Police Agency living safety and living order division, dispatched after receiving a report of 112 pertaining to the control of illegal custom business establishments; and (c) attempted to refer the said notice to E as evidence; and (d) the said E “I would bring about a scar in mind.”

Maternal, bringing about death shall be discarded.

“A sound,” and assaulted E’s chests twice by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the crime control duty.

2. The gist of the Defendant’s defense is that it is difficult to view that the Defendant, at the entrance of the Defendant, was an assault against the police officer coming to himself/herself, and that the Defendant’s act constitutes legitimate defense as an act to protect property rights by setting up against illegal seizure that did not meet requirements for urgent seizure.

3. Determination

A. In order for a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties to be established as to the legality of the performance of official duties, there is a need to establish the legality of the performance of official duties (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do3016, May 9, 1995, etc.). Thus, prior to determining whether the Defendant assaulted a police officer, whether the performance of official duties is legitimate or not should be viewed as to whether the Defendant

Police Officers E wanted to seize Defendant’s game release according to the emergency seizure procedure, and the facts charged interfere with Defendant’s above E’s execution of official duties. Therefore, it is problematic whether E’s emergency seizure procedure is lawful.

(b) requirements for urgent seizure;