The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence of this case, it is sufficiently recognized that police officers G and J notified the principle of non-competence in the process of arresting Defendant A as a current criminal offender, taking into account the summary of the grounds for appeal (a interference with the performance of official duties against the Defendants)

Nevertheless, the court below did not recognize the legality of the act of arresting a flagrant offender A by the police officers, since there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the police officers notified the Dao principle.

The court below found the defendants not guilty as to the obstruction of the performance of official duties against the defendants. The court below erred in the misapprehension of law which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts. [The court below dismissed the public prosecution as to assault against the defendant Gap among the facts charged in this case and appealed only to the non-guilty part (the part of the court below's judgment that interfered with the performance of official duties against the defendant), the scope of party members' inquiry is limited to the non-guilty part among the judgment below.] 2. The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its judgment based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. The following circumstances acknowledged by the facts and evidence are as follows: 1. G and J within the convenience point in this case were to witness the defendant Gap's assault against the defendant Eul, and she did not appear to have been sufficient time to inform the defendant Eul of the principle that the defendant did not obstruct the defendant Eul's arrest, and 2. The convenience point in this case did not interfere with the defendant Eul's arrest.

The J stated that it notified the principle of domination before the convenience point of this case.

In principle, I shall make a statement.