The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the defendant tried to escape in a building in which an automatic cash payment machine has been installed, and there is no fact that the police has been threatened, and rather, it is merely a resistance by illegally arresting the defendant, such as not notifying the contents of the crime or the right to appoint an attorney, etc., by misunderstanding the defendant as a larceny, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. According to Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, any person may arrest a flagrant offender without a warrant. In order to arrest a flagrant offender, the necessity of arrest, i.e., the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence, in addition to the punishment of the act, the current nature of the crime, and the apparentness of the crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029 delivered on January 26, 199, etc.). However, whether a person satisfies the requirements for the arrest of a flagrant offender should be determined based on the situation at the time of the arrest, and the judgment of the investigating entity regarding the requirements should have a reasonable discretion. Considering the situation at the time of the arrest as at the time of the arrest, the arrest of a flagrant offender cannot be deemed unlawful unless the judgment of the investigating entity on the requirements is considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical rule.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do8184 Decided November 29, 2012, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the lower court and the trial court, two police officers, such as D, were dispatched at the police station where the Defendant 1 received 112 report that he/she would be confined at the site of this case, i.e., the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant went to a building where the Nong Agricultural Cooperative was installed with drinking alcohol, and the door was not opened; and (b) the employee F of the unmanned security enterprise arrived at the site of this case; (c) the employee F of the unmanned security enterprise arrived at the site of this case; and (d) the person would be confined at the place of cash withdrawal.