The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

except that the ruling shall be made for one year from the date of the final judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service order) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, we examine ex officio as to the obstruction of performance of official duties among the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established only when the performance of official duties is legitimate. Here, legitimate performance of official duties refers to not only the abstract authority of a public official, but also the case meeting the legal requirements and methods for specific performance of official duties.

Therefore, if a police officer tried to arrest a flagrant offender with actual force despite the police officer's failure to meet the requirements for arrest of a flagrant offender, it cannot be deemed a legitimate performance of official duties. If an act of arresting a flagrant offender goes beyond legitimate performance of official duties and can only be deemed an illegal act, such act does not constitute an obstruction of performance of official duties even in the course of resisting the police officer to escape from arrest.

On the other hand, any person may arrest a flagrant offender without a warrant (Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In order to arrest a flagrant offender, there should be a concern about the necessity of arrest, i.e., the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence in addition to the punishment of the act, the current and time contact of the crime, and the apparentness of the crime. The arrest of a flagrant offender who fails to meet such requirements constitutes an illegal arrest without a warrant based on the legal basis.

Here, whether a person satisfies the requirements for the arrest of flagrant offenders should be determined based on the situation at the time of arrest, and there is considerable discretion in the judgment of the investigative body, such as a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer. However, if a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer’s judgment on whether the requirements are met is considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical rule, considering the situation at the