The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable for the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) to be sentenced.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the legal principles (not guilty part of the lower judgment) of the police officer’s duty to arrest the Defendant as the current offender is lawful, and the Defendant’s act of assaulting the police officer during the arrest constitutes a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, but the lower court did not satisfy the legal requirements.

The judgment of the court and the decision of not guilty on this part of the facts charged are erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal doctrine ought to be made on the grounds that a prosecutor or a judicial police officer arrests an existing offender, and ought to give an opportunity to defend himself/herself by stating the gist of the offense, the grounds for arrest, and the appointment of a defense counsel (Articles 213-2 and 200-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Such notification ought to be made in advance before entering an exercise of real force for arrest.

However, if a person who gets away a suspect or who is in opposition against violence is forced to do so by force, he/she shall be notified in the course of putting in or suppressing the suspect, or shall be notified without delay after putting in or suppressing the person.

Any interference with the execution of public duties as prescribed in Article 136 of the Criminal Act shall be constituted only when the execution of duties by a public official is lawful.

In this case, lawful performance of official duties refers to not only the abstract authority of a public official but also the case where the act meets the legal requirements and methods for specific performance of duties. Thus, if a police officer tried to commit a current criminal without complying with due process, it cannot be deemed a legitimate performance of official duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2168, Mar. 15, 2017, etc.). 2) In light of the above legal principles, the health class and the lower court recognized the instant case.