The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is that police officers dispatched at the time of this case did not properly investigate the truth and did not hear the statements of the perpetrator, and see the statement of the perpetrator, and insulting speech to the defendant. The defendant's abusive and assault act was conducted at a corresponding level.

Therefore, since the legality of the execution of official duties of this case cannot be recognized, the defendant's act does not constitute the elements of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, but the court below found the defendant guilty.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant, at around 23:10 on October 21, 201, expressed that “Around 201, in the building D located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, by receiving a report from 112, he was sent, and obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate performance of public duties on confirmation of the above police officers’ report, etc., on two occasions, following the following: “The Defendant, at around 23:10 on October 21, 201, desires to see this ringer, she shall be in accordance with the same ringer, she shall be in the same manner, and she shall be in the same ringer, she shall be in her hands and her body,” and the Defendant, who continued to restrain it, expressed that “A’s chests, etc., desire to her governance, thereby interfering with G’s legitimate performance of public duties on confirmation of the report by the above police officers.”

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence.

C. 1) 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 where the act belongs to the abstract authority of a public official, but also where the act satisfies the legal requirements and methods concerning specific performance of duties. The act of assault or intimidation against the public official performing the act of lack of legality, or the act of assault or intimidation, or detention, cannot be viewed as the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties (see Supreme Court Decision 209.2.12.209).