The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors, misunderstanding of the legal principles) and the statements of witnesses, etc., it can be acknowledged that the Defendant committed a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties against a police officer, and that the Defendant knee kne sne se se se se se se se se se se sese se se

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant’s act did not reach an assault against the police officer, on the premise that the assault against the obstruction of performance of official duties is limited to the exercise of force against the person’s body.

B. 1) In the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties, violence against a public official includes not only the exercise of a tangible force against a public official, but also the exercise of an indirect tangible force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do662, May 12, 1998). This is sufficient to exercise a tangible force against a person, and does not necessarily require that it is against a person’s body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do21537, Mar. 29, 2018). 2) The lower court and the lower court were duly adopted and investigated and recognized by evidence, comprehensively taking account of the following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, it may be recognized that the Defendant used a tangible force against a police officer who performs his/her duties as stated in the facts charged, and in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, it constitutes assault in the crime

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case solely based on its reasoning. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument pointing this out is with merit.

① In addition to the statements of victimized police officers E and I as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, there are statements by witnesses J.

J’s statements are the statements of police officers.