The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

With regard to the part of the judgment of the court below not guilty (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties), the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the misconception of facts (the part of the acquittal) is not guilty, and the police officers, upon receiving the report of this case, confirmed the obstruction of duties, the unfolding ceremony, and the assault charges against female employees through the witness's statement, etc., and requested the defendant to explain the situation by designating the defendant as the suspect. Considering the fact that the defendant was arrested in the act of committing violence against the police officer while escaping, considering the fact that the defendant was arrested in the act of assault due to the use of violence against the police officer, the police officer was placed in the stage of arresting the suspect when checking the existence of suspicion by stopping the

Therefore, Article 3 (4) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers does not apply as it is, which provides for the presentation of a certificate as a procedural provision for an in-depth autopsy and disclosing its affiliation and name

Even if the police officer violated the above provision, it is merely a minor procedural violation in that the police officer was a fluorial vehicle.

In addition, according to Article 26 of the Resident Registration Act, it is difficult to interpret it as a procedural provision that a judicial police officer must comply with the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers in light of the fact that a judicial police officer can request the presentation of resident registration certificate to confirm the identity or residential relation of residents

Therefore, the police officer's measures of this case are legitimate execution of official duties, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

If a police officer's act is viewed as a voluntary investigator's non-explosion like the court below (as to the part of the crime), the defendant's act of deviating from his place shall be deemed to have refused to comply with the non-explosion, and it constitutes an unlawful exercise of public authority.

Therefore, the defendant.