A. Defendant 1) On August 24, 2011, the arrest of a flagrant offender against Q does not meet the requirements for the crime of obstruction of the performance of special duties, such as the apparentness of the crime, and the principle was not properly notified, and thus, cannot be deemed lawful performance of official duties. In addition, the Defendant did not engage in the act corresponding to the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties, such as exercising force directly against a police officer, and went on his own on the escorted vehicle for the purpose of resisting illegal arrest. Thus, the obstruction of the performance of official duties on August 25, 2011 does not fall under the “dive force”. (2) The instant TW vehicle was the vehicle with a view to distributing Q in preparation for the resistance that the counter-construction activity did not release Q, and did not fall under the vehicle carrying out the escorting service for Q, etc.

In addition, the principle of disturbance has not been properly notified at the time of arrest of the defendant, and the defendant's resistance against the arrest does not constitute a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties, which is natural and able behavior, and it does not constitute a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties.

3) On September 30, 201, the arrest of the criminal in the act of obstruction of the performance of official duties against B cannot be deemed lawful execution of official duties because the arrest of the criminal in the act of obstruction of the performance of official duties does not meet the clear requirement of the crime. The police officer’s restraint against the criminal in the act of the defendant who did not proceed to a criminal act is illegal execution of official duties without any legal basis, and thus the criminal defendant’s resistance cannot be regarded as the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties. In addition, since the police officer did not perform his duties to arrest the criminal in the act of the defendant in the act of the defendant in the act of the defendant in the act of the defendant in the act of obstruction of the performance of official duties, there is no causation between the defendant’s imprisonment and the obstruction of

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant.