The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The statement made by the police officer D, who caused damage to the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), is consistent and concrete with the main contents of the statement, such as the background of the assault and force, and its credibility may be recognized.

In addition, a witness E tried to pricing the upper head of D due to the defendant's fluence by drinking.

The statement supports D's statements, and CCTV images taken by the situation at the time are not contrary to D's statements.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The court below held that ① if the video taken by a police officer at the time, it can be confirmed that the Defendant’s surface was put in D, but D is not deemed to be suitable for the damages caused by the Defendant’s loss, ② D already made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was at the time of her hand, but it appears to be clearly inconsistent with the above video, ③ At the time of the case, E appears to be clearly contrary to D’s statement from the investigative agency to the effect that “the Defendant was trying to price D’s upper head with the Defendant’s hand, but it exceeded D,” and ④ at the same time, the Defendant appears to have sold D’s her face to the face, and it was difficult to view that it was difficult to find the Defendant not guilty of the charge of interfering with the Defendant’s performance of official duties on the ground that it was difficult to view it as obstructing the Defendant’s execution of official duties by taking the Defendant’s own hand and her loss into consideration that it constituted a obstruction of the Defendant’s execution of official duties.

In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, a thorough examination is conducted, and the same image submitted by the prosecutor is re-folded.