A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part in the judgment of the court below) ① In order to prevent a police officer from being arrested as a flagrant offender by a police officer dispatched at the time of the instant case, the above police officer committed an act of spreading him, etc., but the above act was an obvious expression of intention to punish A's assaulting act against A as stated in the current arrest letter attached to the indictment of the instant case.

It is difficult to see immediately and otherwise, there is no fact that the defendant told that he does not want the punishment of A to the above police officer. ② At the time of this case, A expressed a desire to the above police officer at the time of this case, A started to take the face of the defendant, and the above police officer arrested A as an offender in the crime of assault. The above police officer's act of insulting the above police officer and the act of assaulting the defendant was caused by a series of acts within the scope that is recognized as having the temporary identity, and therefore only the "crime of assault" is stated in the current arrest document as an offense.

Even if the arrest of the above offender is not legitimate, the arrest is not legitimate.

In full view of the above facts, there is no illegality in the arrest of the above flagrant offender, and thus no crime of obstructing the execution of official duties is established against the defendant who asserted such lack.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,00,000) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On August 31, 2014, the Defendant, at around 01:50 on August 31, 2014, was arrested as an offender in the act of committing a crime, the Defendant’s summary of this part of the facts charged reveals that G is walking in the name of “E essential point” operated by D in the area of the mountain (Y) and that of “E essential point” operated by D in the area of the mountain (Y).