A. On the premise that the arrest of a police officer H in the act of committing an offense is illegal, the lower court’s determination is inappropriate to arrest the defendant as an offender in the act of committing an offense, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of interference with the execution of official duties by resisting the defendant’s resistance to the arrest of a police officer in the act of committing an offense committed by the law.

The decision was determined.

However, when the police arrives at the site, I was identified as the victim of assault I.

In light of the fact that it was necessary for the police to arrest H as a perpetrator, that the police officer notified the Ha of the Domin rule to H, and that there was a concern about the destruction of evidence to H, it is legitimate for the police to arrest H as an offender in the act of committing an offense. Since the defendant resisted to the arrest of H and obstructed the police officer's performance of official duties, it is legitimate for the police to arrest the defendant as an offender in the act of committing an offense.

Therefore, it constitutes a crime of interference with the execution of official duties when the defendant resisted to legitimate arrest of a flagrant offender, and assaulted by breath of the police.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of mistake of fact: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the police, namely, H and I, at the time of arrival at the scene, were in the situation where the police and I were at the end of fighting by misunderstanding each other; (b) H did not make any particular resistance during the process of arrest, and was in the situation of the married person himself/herself, and thus, it appears that the police could have been sufficiently set to the district in the form of voluntary accompanying; (c) it is unclear whether the police notified of the Dara principle in the course of arresting H as a flagrant offender; and (d) the Defendant’s insult committed by the police pursuant to the aforementioned subordinate law.