Even if the defendant committed such act, since police officers did assault the police officers in the course of illegally arresting the defendant and setting up against it without informing the police officers of the anti-speak principle, the illegality as self-defense is dismissed.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, “E was called together with F upon receiving domestic violence reports.” The lower court’s judgment stated in detail that “E was sent to the Defendant at the same time with F. The Defendant was able to booming the Defendant, sing the Defendant, sing the Defendant, and sing down, and thereby arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender at the next time. Doing so, the Defendant did not go through communication with the police officer, and notified the Defendant of the instant principle by exercising violence against the police officer, and arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.” The lower court’s testimony was credibility in the statement, ② “The Defendant was sent along with E” (i) the Defendant was satisfying with the Defendant, and (ii) the Defendant was satisfying in the cell while leaving the Defendant, and (iii) the Defendant’s act was in cooperation with the police officer’s duty to arrest the Defendant at the same time as the instant investigation officer’s statement was made to the effect.”