The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to find the facts, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, although the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that he obstructed the performance of official duties by opening the F’s swimming pool and taking the test into consideration, which is a police official, but the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. On October 16, 2016, the summary of this part of the facts charged is determined as follows: (a) the Defendant, at the D Ga Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do dong Do Do Do Do dong Do Do Do Do dong Do Do Do Do, who was dispatched after receiving a report of assault, was asked questions about his personal information from F Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do

In addition, “to arrested sea Rabk kn kb homicideed;

6 22 6

In order to remove the wall in front of the inside, the above F tried to open the wall collection and remove the wall, and the test attempted to cut off the wall.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reported cases and the maintenance of order by police officers.

2) The lower court’s judgment held that the evidence as shown in the above facts charged lies in F’s statement by the police. However, even if based on the witness F and G’s statement at the lower court’s court’s court, the Defendant did not directly see the swimming pool of the police gate and the gate, and even based on F and G’s statement, it is evident that the Defendant did not reach the act of inserting or inserting the gate’s hand on the part of the main body in which the Defendant was on the wall and the gate, and it was evident that the Defendant did not go beyond the Defendant’s taking on the wall’s wall, etc., and it was difficult for the Defendant to know whether the gate’s gate and the main body of the police gate in which the Defendant was on the wall and the gate were on the wall. In light of the foregoing, it is difficult for the Defendant to know, rather than in light of the fact that the Defendant’s clothes was on the part of the police.