In addition, police officers informed prior to arrest of the principle of non-speak, and even if they did not so, they have prevented the defendant against violence by force and notified the principle of non-speak immediately. Thus, arrest of flagrant offender is lawful.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that the arrest of police officers E, etc. flagrant offenders does not constitute legitimate performance of official duties. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on legality of the arrest of flagrant offenders or the arrest of flagrant offenders and the

2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court held that the following facts were revealed: (a) the Defendant voluntarily committed the following disturbance as a matter of the taxi driver F and fee; (b) the police officer, who was affiliated with the earth, paid the Defendant a taxi fee to F; and (c) the police officer, who was ordered the Defendant to return home to F; (d) the police officer, who was ordered the Defendant to return home to F; and (e) the police officer, who expressed the complaint, expressed that “I must do so,” “I would like to arrest a flagrant offender”; (e) one of the police officers called “I would arrest a flagrant offender”; and (e) two or three police officers, including E, attempted to have the Defendant lock; and (e) the police officer, including E, attempted to go against the police officer’s strong resistance to the police officer, and (e) the part of E-I.D. portion of E-I. portion of E-I.