The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts or misapprehension of legal principles requires the defendant to produce an identification card, arrest the defendant is illegal, and the defendant is against the execution of official duties. Thus, the defendant's act does not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(a) If it is necessary to verify the identity or residence of a resident aged 17 or older in the course of performing his/her duties, such as arresting an offender, etc., a judicial police officer may demand to present the resident registration certificate;

(Article 26(1) of the Resident Registration Act. A police officer may stop and question a person who has reasonable grounds to suspect that he/she has committed or is about to commit a crime in his/her own reasonable judgment on his/her water conduct or surrounding circumstances.

(Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers). Any person who is committing or immediately after committing a crime may arrest a flagrant offender without a warrant.

In order to arrest a flagrant offender as a flagrant offender, there should be a 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, the apparentness of the crime, and the necessity of arrest, i.e., the risk of escape or destruction of evidence. Whether the requirements for arrest of the flagrant offender are satisfied should be determined based on the situation at

Therefore, in light of the circumstances at the time of arrest, unless the judgment of the investigating authority on the requirements is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical rule, the arrest of the investigating authority is not determined to be unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do13726 Decided February 18, 2016, etc.).