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. The court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the police officer's attempt to arrest the defendant as a flagrant offender in fraud does not meet the requirements for the arrest of a flagrant offender, although the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the prosecutor's evidence presented by the summary of the grounds for appeal that the prosecutor sufficiently acknowledged the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

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 an act to be arrested as a flagrant offender.

(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 Decisions 200Do5701 Decided June 11, 2002; 2002Do4227 Decided December 10, 2002, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4227, Jun. 11, 2002

In full view of the following facts revealed by the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the court below, at the time when the police officer arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender in fraud, the defendant did not pay the drinking value due to the fact that the police officer called up with a report of F, the principal restaurant operator, again recommended that he would pay the drinking value and return home, and did not comply with the considerable longer time, and that he did not pay the drinking value due to the fact that he did not have any money and did not have any card. The identification card or mobile phone number is presented.