The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the statements by police officers H, U, and J, etc. who observed the scene at the time of the instant appeal, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant committed the same act as the facts charged in the instant case against the police officers.

2. Determination:

A. On June 11, 2014, around 06:15, the Defendant obstructed police officers’ legitimate performance of duties by taking the son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the following grounds.

1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., (i) it is common sense that a person’s or a person’s son or a person’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son

"............ is not memory on most matters, including questions."

and even, “A witness has made a statement to what he had ever done.”

For the questions of the counsel asked "," "I am well aware of his/her memory."

“The answer was made”, and in light of this, U.S.