A. As to the obstruction of performance of official duties, Defendant 1’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is that the police officer arrested the Defendant as an offender in the crime of insult at the time of the instant case does not meet the requirements, such as the necessity of arrest, and constitutes an unlawful performance of official duties. The Defendant’s assaulting a police officer’s H constitutes self-defense as a defensive act to escape from the arrest of a police officer in an unfair crime.

B) In relation to the insult of the victim N, the Defendant only had several police officers working for the D police box with the victim at the time of the victim’s humping, and thus, does not constitute a crime of insult. 2) As such, the Defendant claiming mental and physical disability had long undergone brain surgery, and had a serious alcohol addiction, thereby hindering his memory and judgment ability. However, even at the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions by drinking alcohol.

3) The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. B. The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unfair. 2. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of grounds for appeal (excluding bilateral allegation of unfair sentencing)

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the obstruction of performance of official duties can be arrested by a flagrant offender without a warrant. In order to arrest a flagrant offender as a flagrant offender, the necessity of arrest, i.e., the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence, in addition to the punishment of an act, the current sexual connection of a crime, and the apparentness of a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029, Jan. 26, 1999). However, whether a flagrant offender satisfies the requirements 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 in the judgment of the investigative body, and at the