공무집행방해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. When a police officer was called to the scene of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the victim recognized the current status of the crime immediately after the victim was assaulted against the defendant, and the victim was likely to destroy evidence if the defendant was living together with the defendant and did not immediately arrest the defendant, and the use of the thesis was in a situation after the defendant was frightened and obstructed the police officer's performance of official duties, and thus, it is not a factor to consider the legality of arrest of a flagrant offender. Thus, although the police officer's arrest of a flagrant offender was lawful, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.
2. On February 20, 2014, at around 21:30, the Defendant: (a) received 112 report from the Defendant’s residence located in Ulsan-gu C Apartment 209 Dong 703, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, 2014; and (b) sent the Defendant’s words “to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender” from D, who heard the horses “to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender” from Ulsan-nam Police Station E-gu, Ulsan-nam Police Station E-gu, Ulsan-gu; and (c) sent the said F’s work mother one time, and served as drinking, as the said F.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties against the arrest of police officers.
3. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant could not flee or destroy evidence because "the following circumstances, i.e., (i) the F and G confirmed the facts of assault from D before entering the house, and the defendant was able to take advantage of his/her age in his/her house, and thus, the defendant could not have taken a situation where he/she could flee or destroy evidence, and (ii) the defendant expressed a desire for police officers and act threatening him/her.