The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. At the time of the instant case’s summary of the grounds of appeal, the Defendant could reverse the statement by reply or intimidation on the relationship between the witness and the Defendant even if the fact of assault was committed by the Defendant, so there was a concern about destruction of evidence, and there was a possibility of additional harm or harm to the victim, etc., and there was no expectation that police officers would have responded to the request of voluntary accompanying in light of the Defendant’s emergency acts, and thus, there was a need for arrest.

Therefore, although the arrest of a flagrant offender against the defendant by the police officer of this case is lawful, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles on the ground of the illegality of arrest of a flagrant offender.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with the performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established only when the performance of official duties is legitimate. The term "reasonable performance of official duties" refers to not only the abstract authority of a public official, but also the case where the act satisfies the legal requirements and methods for the specific performance of duties. Meanwhile, according to Article 12 (5) of the Constitution, Articles 213-2 and 200-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, where a judicial police officer arrests a current offender, it is apparent that he must be given the summary of the crime, the reason for detention, and the opportunity to defend himself. Thus, if the police officer tried to commit a current offender with the real force without complying with the above due process, it cannot be deemed a legitimate performance of official duties if the police officer tried to commit a current offender with the force (see Supreme Court Decisions 99Do4341, Jul. 4, 200; 2004Do5894, Nov. 26, 2004).