The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the police officer attempted to arrest a flagrant offender with the suspicion of property damage cannot be deemed lawful performance of official duties because the police officer failed to meet the requirements for the arrest of a flagrant offender. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was as follows: (a) around October 19, 2014, the Defendant: (b) around 00:20, the Defendant destroyed the tables in the first floor of the Manan-si C underground of the Manan-si, Mayang-si; (c) the Defendant: (d) the police officer, a police officer of the E District, who was called out upon receiving 112 a report, attempted to arrest D in the act of committing a crime for the purpose of causing damage to property; (d) the police officer, who was a police officer of the E District, attempted to capture D to commit a crime of causing damage to property; and (e) carried and pushed the flab.

As such, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers F on the suppression and investigation of crimes.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court held that the police officer’s act of arresting D as a flagrant offender committing an act of causing damage to property is likely to escape or destroy evidence, i.e., the necessity of arrest. D.

It is difficult to see that D's crime of destroying property is insignificant in itself, and there is an urgent circumstance for police officers to immediately arrest a criminal at the scene of crime without an objective judgment of the investigative body, such as prosecutor, etc.

In addition, it is difficult to see that the act of a police officer to arrest D as a flagrant offender with a charge of damaging property does not meet the requirements for the arrest of a flagrant offender and thus does not meet the requirements for the formation of a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, on the ground that the instant facts charged do not constitute a crime, pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.