The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether it constitutes a crime of obstructing the execution of official duties;

A. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the former Act on the Performance of Police Duties by Police Officers (amended by Act No. 11031, Aug. 4, 201; hereinafter “former Act on the Performance of Police Duties by Police Officers”) provides for “prevention of crimes” as one of the duties performed by police officers (see Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the current Act) and Article 6(1) of the same Act

When it is recognized, a warning necessary to prevent it may be issued to the persons concerned, and where it is urgently required because the act is likely to inflict a bodily injury or a serious damage to property, the act may be prevented.

Article 6 of the former Act provides that “If a police officer’s control measures to prevent a crime can be assessed as lawful performance of his/her duties, it may be objectively recognized that the act subject to criminal punishment is about to be committed in front, and the act is likely to cause harm to his/her life or grave damage to his/her property unless the act is avoided, and there is an imminent situation, except for the method of direct restraint, in which the above result cannot be prevented (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do9794, Nov. 13, 2008; 2016Do13876, Dec. 15, 2016). Where a public prosecutor or judicial police officer arrests an existing offender, he/she must always refer to the summary of the offense, grounds for arrest, and opportunity to defend himself/herself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do9794, Nov. 13, 2008; 2016Do13876, etc.).

However, even though it has run away, it is to be attached or violent to the suspect.