However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

At around 05:40 on October 18, 2018, the Defendant received 112 reports and asked questions as to whether or not food value is calculated from police officers D belonging to the Suwon-nam Police Station C commander of the Suwon-nam Police Station, who called the scene, fleded to approximately 150 meters from the direction of "E" department, and the Defendant, who attempted to conceal the Defendant and arrest the Defendant, obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate execution of duties by a police officer with regard to the handling of the report of 112 cases and arrest of flagrant offenders.

[Defendant’s defense counsel, since the Defendant was not a person committing a crime of fraud, the police officer’s attempt to arrest the Defendant at the time of the instant case did not constitute a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, not a lawful performance of official duties. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is premised on the legitimate performance of official duties by public officials. Whether a certain official official belonging to abstract authority is legitimate or not shall be determined objectively and reasonably based on the specific circumstances at the time of the act, and shall not be determined based on pure objective criteria ex post facto. Likewise, the legality of arrest of flagrant offenders ought to be objectively determined based on the specific circumstances at the time of arrest, and it is not based on whether the offender was recognized ex post facto (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do4763, Aug. 23, 2013). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the instant court, namely, D was a police officer working at the Suwon Southern Police Station C, who was dispatched at the scene, and the Defendant did not receive a report at the time of dispatch from GD.