The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendants, not guilty, publicly notified the summary of the judgment against Defendant A.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. The Defendants did not commit an assault against a police officer.

B. The punishment of the illegal Defendants is heavy.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged: (a) around April 2, 2015, the Defendants did not want to punish six police officers, such as the security guards belonging to the Seoul Nowon-gu Police Station E-gu Seoul Nowon-gu Police Station E-gu Police Station, and did not want to recover from the Defendants, while drinking alcohol at “D main points” located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu on April 2, 2015, and Defendant B did not pay the drinking value; and (b) upon receiving a report, the Defendants were forced to return to the Republic of Korea.

around that time, there is a defect that the police officer F, who belongs to the E Zone, tried to drive the patrol vehicle on the front side of the D Zone, and the defendant A, who is dissatisfied with the police officer's complaint, 17th of the rest of the patrol vehicle, prevents the police officer from driving the patrol vehicle. The police officer's complaint against the police officer dispatched, "I am burd with the police assigned by the police branch, furd with the match.

In addition, Defendant B assaulted 15 minutes, such as interfering with the progress of the patrol vehicle by dricking the patrol vehicle on the patrol unit No. 17.

As such, the Defendants jointly interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the dispatch of the site.

B. Determination on the grounds of appeal 1) The crime of interference with the execution of official duties is a requirement for the formation of violence and intimidation, and the case by force, etc. which does not reach the requirement is not subject to the element.

In addition to the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, the Criminal Act’s provision of interference with the performance of official duties, separate from the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, shall be deemed to be the purport of punishing public officials only in cases of interference with the execution of official duties by means of violence, intimidation, or deceptive scheme against public officials (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4166, Nov. 19, 2009). The crime of interference with the performance of official duties is established by assault or intimidation against public officials performing official duties, and such assault is committed.