The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. At the time of the summary of the grounds for appeal (definite and misunderstanding of legal principles), police officers took hand at the front glass of a white vehicle containing garbage finites, and around the said vehicle. While being aware of such circumstances, the Defendant, despite being aware of the circumstances, was finites, finites, which contain garbage, laid down a plastic finite, which contain garbage onto the glass of the vehicle, and laid down garbage in the finite, face, body box, etc. of the police officers.

Since the Defendant, under the glass window, was aware that the police officers could face the death of vinyl finite finites, it is recognized that the Defendant did not commit the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

2. The judgment below affirmed the defendant's assertion that the defendant received plastic paper containing garbage five times in total according to the documentary CD images submitted by the prosecutor, and it is difficult to see that four times in which the defendant received plastic paper containing garbages, among which, the defendant's four times in which the front glass of the vehicle was sent to the police officer, the remaining one time in the front direction of the vehicle was left in the front direction of the police officer, and the police officer was in a position without any police officer, and in light of the above images, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant was in a plastic paper containing garbages toward police officers, and the defendant was acquitted on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The following circumstances revealed by the facts and circumstances stated in the judgment of the court below, namely, at the time, the defendant was standing on the front door of the vehicle, and the police officer in the name of bner was unable to freely move the defendant's body because he prevented the defendant from leaving his body. Police officers were mainly in the vicinity of the front door of the vehicle, and police officers were in front of the front glass of the vehicle, and police officers were not in front of the front glass door of the vehicle. The defendant received plastic sealing and mainly to the front door of the vehicle without police officers.