1. The facts charged of the instant case are as follows: “The Defendant expressed a bath to police officers C on November 19, 201, 01, 01:40, the front road of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and C arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the crime of insult and arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the crime of insult, and thereby, obstructed C’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders in consideration of the Defendant’s face to C, with the view to her face.”

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the ground that it does not constitute the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties on the ground that: (a) the police officer arrested the defendant as an offender in the crime of insult and notified only the summary of the crime while arresting the defendant as an offender in the crime of insult, and did not provide an opportunity to defend him/her; (b) it cannot be deemed legitimate performance of official duties; and (c) it does not mean that the defendant was given an opportunity to defend him/her without delay after he/she controlled the defendant when he/she was deemed to have been tryed to drive immediately after taking the patrol, and it does not constitute the crime of obstruction of official duties on the ground that he/she took a bath or assault against C by refusing it, and there is

However, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court and the lower court, i.e., ① the document of confirmation (attached to the notice of arrest) signed and sealed by the Dranc Police Station, which was signed and sealed by the Defendant and the Defendant at the time of the instant case due to the charge of assault, stated that “the documents attached to the notice of arrest and detention, upon arrest of a flagrant offender due to the crime of assault, may be identified by the summary of the suspected crime, the reason for the arrest, and the appointment of counsel, and the opportunity for defense to request a review of legality of the arrest, shall be verified.” On the other hand, the confirmation letter