The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the statements made by police officers, such as E and F, of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by assaulting a police officer in the process of dealing with civil petitions arising between himself/herself and the taxi engineer

Although it can be fully recognized, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by mistake of facts.

2. Determination

A. While recognizing the fact that the police officer E was closely involved, the Defendant asserted that the police officer F entered the scam to resist the scambling to the scambling of the taxi engineer, and that E acted so by the defective police officer E by putting his scambling.

B. The crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is established when the performance of official duties is legitimate, and the legitimate performance of official duties here must not only fall under the abstract authority of the public official, but also be within the authority of the public official, and must meet the requirements and methods as an act of official duties. Whether a certain performance of official duties is legitimate should be determined objectively and reasonably based on the specific situation at the time

In addition, since the legality of the execution of official duties is an objective element of the interference with the execution of official duties, the prosecutor must prove it to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

(c)

Considering the following facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is that police officer E was a legitimate official duty at the time of the instant case.

It is difficult to recognize it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that acquitted the defendant is just and there is no violation of law as argued by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

1) The police officer E expressed that the police officer F would not go to him/her when returning a taxi engineer at the first police box, and the defendant was his/her chest.