The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is D that the Defendant opposed to the construction of smuggling 765kV power transmission lines, and around November 19, 2013, around 16:25, the Defendant was unable to move from the road to the place of the construction of transmission tower No. 96, 55, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., 4 e., e., e., e., 4 e., e., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., g., e., g., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., e., g.).

2. The offense of obstruction of the performance of official duties is established by assaulting or threatening a public official performing his/her duties. The assault at this time refers to the act of exercising an unlawful tangible power against a public official, which is either directly or indirectly, or not, and the intimidation refers to a notice of any harm and injury that may cause fear to the other party. However, the assault or intimidation refers to a public official performing his/her duties in light of its nature and must interfere

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9020 Decided March 16, 2007). In addition, in the case of obstruction of performance of official duties, assault and intimidation in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties should be sufficient to prevent public officials from performing their official duties due to its nature. Thus, if a public official is not opened to the extent of not opening, it does not constitute assault and intimidation by a public official.

(Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4449 Decided 01, 2007). According to the result of the verification of video CDs under this law and the records of this case, including video images of video CDs, the defendant at the time of this case is on the cryp fence.