All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the obstruction of performance of official duties and injury to the Defendant’s criminal facts in the original judgment) are insignificant to the extent that the Defendant’s insult and obstruction of official duties against E was minor, and when the police officer was dispatched, he had already left E, and thus, arrested the Defendant in the act of committing an act of committing an offense was illegal arrest. As such, the Defendant’s act committed by the Defendant to escape from this point of view constitutes self-defense and thus, the illegality of the Defendant’s act is dismissed. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, any person may arrest a flagrant offender immediately after or after the commission of the relevant crime without a warrant (Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In order to arrest a flagrant offender, 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 hourly contact of the crime, and the apparentness of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029, Jan. 26, 199), should be determined on the basis of the situation at the time of arrest, and the subject of investigation may have considerable discretion. Therefore, unless the judgment of the investigative body on the requirements is deemed unreasonable in light of the empirical rule, it cannot be readily concluded that the arrest of a flagrant offender is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do8184, Nov. 29, 2012).