A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were not notified at the time when the defendant was arrested as an offender in the act of committing an offense, and there was no need or reasonableness for the arrest. Therefore, the defendant's act of resistanceing against such illegal arrest does not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties.

B. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disability.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, any person may arrest a flagrant offender without a warrant (Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In order to arrest a flagrant offender as a flagrant offender, the court below’s judgment and the court below’s evidence duly adopted and examined the following circumstances, namely, ① the police officer who was dispatched to the scene at the time of the time of the arrest and the need for arrest, i.e., the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029, Jan. 26, 1999). The requirement for the arrest of a flagrant offender should be determined based on the situation at the time of the arrest, and there is a reasonable discretion. Therefore, unless the judgment of the investigative officer at the time of the arrest is deemed unreasonable in light of the empirical rule, the arrest of a flagrant offender at the scene at the time of the arrest is not unlawful.