The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the Defendant’s grounds for appeal (deficial person) abandoned his duties without resolving the Defendant’s civil petition that the police officer E, who was not returned to the Republic of Korea at night, to find out his or her married baby at night. Although E had first been a cell phone device to the Defendant, E was faced with the cellular phone that the Defendant was faced with the Defendant, and the Defendant was arrested in the act of obstruction of performance of official duties.

The fact that the defendant took Handphones while taking a bath to E is recognized, but because E did not perform official duties at the time, it does not constitute the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① a defect in the 112 report from January 10, 2016 to the effect that "the defendant does not return home, so his/her father does not return home," and the police officers visited the D Zone to receive reports from the defendant and request location tracking, and ② The defendant sent his/her cell phone to the above Zone "I will see whether he/she will be able to track the location of his/her dog, and you will see the police officers' voice "I will see if you request location tracking, and if you will see the result of this request, I will see it from the police officers' cell phone 10 to the Ethmal phone face with the defendant's cell phone 1 to the Ethal phone knish, etc., which he/she had received from the police officers' cell phone 1 to the Ethal phone."