Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the charge of this case on the premise that the arrest of the defendant constitutes an illegal flagrant offender. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

2. Article 211 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "after the commission of a crime, i.e., the latter person of the commission of the crime," as a flagrant offender, refers to cases where it is evident from the standpoint of a person who arrests an offender immediately after the commission of the crime. As to a flagrant offender within the original meaning of Article 211 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 211 of the said Act provides for "a person who is in the process of the commission of the crime, i.e., the latter person of the crime," and Article 211 of the said Act provides for "a person who is in the process of the commission of the crime, i.e., the latter person of the crime," and Article 211 of the said Act separately provides for a quasi flagrant offender regarded as a flagrant offender. "after the commission of the crime, after the commission of the crime," it is interpreted that "after the commission of the crime, it means the last time or the phase of time connected

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1249, Apr. 13, 2007). In addition, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established only when the performance of official duties is legitimate. Here, legitimate performance of official duties not only belongs to the abstract authority of a public official, but also satisfies the legal requirements and methods for specific performance of official duties.