Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

2. Determination

A. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act provides that “A person who assaults or threatens a public official performing his/her duties shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 10 million won.”

This crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is established only when the execution of official duties is legitimate, and this act is not only within the abstract authority of a public official, but also within the legal requirements and methods for specific performance of duties.

Although police officers failed to meet the requirements for arrest of flagrant offenders, if they want to arrest flagrant offenders due to actual force, it cannot be deemed a legitimate performance of official duties, and if the act of arresting flagrant offenders goes beyond legitimate performance of official duties and is bound to be deemed illegal arrest, it is reasonable to view that the act of arresting flagrant offenders constitutes legitimate performance of official duties. Thus, the act of causing bodily injury to police officers during the process of resisting against the arrest is an act aimed at deviating from the current infringement of body caused by illegal arrest, and thus, illegal act constitutes self-defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3682, May 26, 2011)

A police officer G dispatched to the site of this case at the time upon receiving a report from the main agent of convenience store that he/she suffered damage to health, damage to property, etc., with the police officer G dispatched to the site of this case at the time of arrival at the site of this court and investigation agency.