beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Since credibility is recognized and there are other evidence to support the statement of police officer F who was assaulted by the summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant is found to have obstructed legitimate performance of official duties by assaulting F.
In addition, the police officers notified the defendant of the principle of disturbance at the time of arrest or the defendant's attitude at patrol, and even if the police officers did not notify the principle of disturbance during the arrest procedure, the act of obstructing the performance of official duties by the defendant had already been taken place before the arrest of the flagrant offender. Thus, the illegality of the arrest procedure does not affect the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties.
2. Determination
A. On October 18, 2014, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant reported 112 to the effect that the Defendant was a customer who is suffering from disturbance under the influence of alcohol at the center of “D” in the operation of the Defendant located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si; (b) on the ground that the duties of the police officers belonging to the Kumi Police Station E-gu, the Defendant reported 112 to the effect that he was a customer who was under the influence of alcohol; (c) on the ground that the performance of duties by the police officers belonging to the Kumi Police Station E-gu, called “I would not hear why he was the victim; (d) who would not speak; and (d) who would be why the police of the Republic of Korea would be hick?h?h?h?h?, the Defendant interfere with the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of reports on the 1112 Incident.
B. The lower court’s judgment as to whether the Defendant assaulted F, can be acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the witness G and H clearly stated in the lower court that the Defendant did not assault F, ② the Defendant was led to the Defendant, and the customer who was in the process of police investigation was led by the Defendant, and the police officer was led by the Defendant, and the police officer was in the middle, and the police officer was considered to have pushed the Defendant.
(3) G is the defendant.