The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Around 06:15 on June 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the vicinity of a f opposite residents installed in the access road to E village from Mayang-si, the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties by means of removing the fright by vicarious administrative execution and by the police officers assigned the fright in the vicinity to prevent crimes and protect the lives and bodies of the people; (b) the police officers belonging to the Busan Regional Police Agency G were in charge of frighting the fright of the police officers, etc. having the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright of the fright.

2. Relevant legal principles and issues

A. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established only when the performance of official duties is legitimate. Here, legitimate performance of official duties refers to not only the abstract authority of a public official, but also the case meeting the legal requirements and methods for specific performance of duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3682, May 26, 201).

The duties of public officials interfered with the facts charged in the instant case are as follows: “When public officials are removed from the door by administrative vicarious execution, and the police officers are placed near the door to prevent the crime and protect the lives and bodies of the people, as described in the facts charged, the police officers collected booms from the police officers, and the police officers’ descendants, etc. who restrain the booms, and interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers’ duties by taking the head debt of the police officers in hand.” As stated in the facts charged, the duties of public officials who interfered with the Defendant are “the duties of police officers to prevent crimes and protect the lives and bodies of the people.”

Therefore, in this case, the measures or performance of duties by police officers are stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers.