Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that police officials E prevented the Defendant, thereby executing illegal public duties that deviate from the limitation of voluntary behavior, and assaulting E by opposing the Defendant.

Even if it cannot be punished as obstruction of performance of official duties, there is an error of law that acquitted the charge of this case.

2. Examining the evidence of this case closely in light of the records, it is reasonable to view that the court below, in accordance with the legal principles as stated in its holding and facts, requested the defendant to voluntarily act, but it is reasonable to view that the defendant expressed his intent to refuse to voluntarily act by having the defendant enter his house without complying with the request. Nevertheless, preventing E from getting off the elevator with the defendant's hand is illegal performance of official duties that deviate from the limitation of voluntary act, and that the defendant assaulted E by setting up against such illegal voluntary act demand.

Even if the defendant cannot be punished as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and even if the defendant is a quasi-flagrant offender under Article 211 (2) 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (when he/she intends to flee about the drinking water).

Even if there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant had taken necessary procedures for the arrest of quasi-flagrant offenders, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no evidence to acknowledge that he had taken such procedures, and even if the arrest of a flagrant offender was made after the defendant assaulted, and the arrest of a flagrant offender was written with the arrest of a flagrant offender, and the offense of insult against G and H was included in the offense of obstruction of performance of official duties, according to the records, E continues to be