The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant was a victim who was assaulted against a person in the name of the victim, the police officer, who was called out, attempted to arrest the Defendant without meeting the requirements for arrest in the act of committing an offense. The Defendant resisted against this, and the Defendant did not have any intent to assault or assault the police officer.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Any person may arrest a flagrant offender who is or immediately after the commission of a crime claiming the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles without a warrant.

(Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act) In order to arrest a flagrant offender as a flagrant offender, the provisional nature of the act, the current and time contact of the crime, and the necessity of the arrest, i.e., the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence, other than the apparentness of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029, Jan. 26, 199). Such requirements for the arrest of the flagrant offender should be determined based on the situation at the time of the arrest, and the judgment of the investigative body has considerable discretion.

Therefore, in light of the circumstances at the time of arrest, unless the judgment of the investigating authority on the requirements is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical rule, the arrest of the investigating authority is not determined to be unlawful.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do13726, Feb. 18, 2016). The following circumstances revealed from the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① Police Officer E was dispatched to the Southern Hospital located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on April 7, 2018, upon receipt of 112 reports, and the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant was damaged by a private letter or entrance from the reporting person at the time was heard. As such, the Defendant, along with Police I, will be the same.