The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The police officer F's act of a police officer who tried to flee or arrest the defendant as a flagrant offender is not a legitimate execution of duty, but a defendant's act of using violence against such unlawful execution of duty constitutes self-defense, even though there was no possibility that the defendant would flee or destroy evidence at the time of the instant case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

(The defendant and his defense counsel withdrawn the assertion of violation of the law of mental and physical disability among the grounds for appeal on the first day of the trial of the first instance).

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act, any person may arrest a flagrant offender without a warrant. In order to arrest a flagrant offender, there is a need for arrest, i.e., the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence, in addition to the punishment of the act, the current sexual connection of the crime, and the apparentness of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do3029, Jan. 26, 1999). However, whether such requirements for arrest of a flagrant offender are met should be determined based on the situation at the time of the arrest, and there is a reasonable discretion. In light of the situation at the time of arrest, the determination by the investigative body on the requirements cannot be deemed illegal unless the determination by the investigative body is considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do5701, Jun. 11, 2002; 1. 202Do27, Dec. 27, 2002).