A. As to the Defendants 1’ misunderstanding of facts and obstructing the performance of official duties by misapprehending the legal principles, the police officers did not notify the Defendants of the summary of the offense, the reason for arrest, and the right to appoint defense counsel at the time of arresting the Defendants as flagrant offenders, and thus, the arrest of the Defendants in the act of committing the crime is unlawful.

2) In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 4 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the timely and bad attitude of the Defendants to police officers in the course of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, each of the punishments imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court also asserted the same purport. In full view of the evidence as indicated in the judgment below, the Defendants asserted that ① at the time, upon receiving the 112 report, Defendant A expressed the victim H who had heard the circumstances of the instant case, and had been urged by the victim H to the effect that the offense of insult may be constituted, despite being given a warning that the crime of insult may be established if he continued to engage in the h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s body and body (hereinafter collectively “H and I”), ② H et al. arrested Defendant A as the current offender of the crime of insult and the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, and H et al. arrested Defendant A as the Defendant’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s h’s right to arrest and immediately after arrest.