The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal, the arrest of a flagrant offender, the confirmation certificate of arrest, the statement of a police officer, etc. with high probative value shall not be easily rejected unless any special circumstance exists;

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which rejected the credibility of the above evidence without examining relevant police officers as witnesses, and judged the not guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence and in the incomplete hearing.

2. Determination (whether arrest of a flagrant offender is lawful) 1) To arrest a flagrant offender as a flagrant offender, the need for arrest, i.e., the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence in addition to the punishment of the act, the current and time contact of the crime, and the apparentness of the crime and the crime, and the arrest of a flagrant offender who fails to meet such requirements constitutes illegal arrest, which is not a warrant based on legal basis. Here, whether the requirements for the arrest of a flagrant offender are satisfied should be determined based on the situation at the time of the arrest. In addition, the determination of whether the requirements for the arrest of a flagrant offender are met should be made based on the situation at the time of the arrest, such as a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer. However, in light of the situation at the time of the arrest, if the determination by a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer, etc. as to whether the requirements are met is considerably unreasonable in light of empirical rule, the arrest is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3682, May 26, 20

① On June 29, 2018, around 21:50, the Defendant: (a) sent a building security guard who provided care to a dynasium located in G 1st floor guard located in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul; (b) sent a building to H with a bath and drink. Upon receiving H’s report, the Defendant discovered that police officers I, E, and E, who were in the neighborhood convenience store due to H’s land category, had been drinking for Ma and beer.

(2) Police I shall be a police officer.