The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. According to the testimony of the court below of misunderstanding the facts-finding, the police arrested the defendants due to the arrest of the criminal in the crime of insult. Since the arrest of the above criminal constitutes an illegal arrest because the necessity of arrest is not recognized in light of the specific circumstances at the time of the arrest, it does not constitute the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties or the illegality as a self-defense is excluded.

In addition, Defendant A’s abusive speech to the police is merely an act that did not go against the social rules and thus, it is justified as an act that did not go against the social rules even though Defendant A complained against the misunderstanding of himself as a criminal.

B. The Defendants did not have any means to punish the Defendants, and the Defendants committed any contingent act while under the influence of misunderstanding a criminal from police officers even though they had committed another person’s crime. As such, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (two years of suspended execution in October and six years of suspended execution in Defendant A’s imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendants asserted that the time of the arrest of the Defendants and the grounds for the arrest of the Defendants asserted that “police arrested the Defendants as a flagrant offender of the crime of insult of defect” regarding the time of the arrest of the Defendants and the grounds for the arrest of the Defendants. The police H stated in the testimony of the lower court to the effect that “the Defendants were arrested as a flagrant offender of the crime of insult of defect. In that process, Defendant B was exposed to their face in the process,” and stated the time of the arrest of the Defendants and the grounds for the arrest of the Defendants as “when the Defendants committed an insulting crime.” However, the aforementioned testimony was made after ten months from March 27, 2014, and was made after the date of the instant crime.