The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the arrest of the flagrant offender of this case is lawful, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the obstruction of the performance of official duties among the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The judgment of the court below which rejected the victim F’s statement despite its credibility, and acquitted the insult of the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, at around 03:50 on October 30, 2014, notified the victim F, etc., who was the police officer, who was in the position of the E district of Busan, of the legal notice of the suspected crime and other legal matters, such as the summary of the suspected crime, by assaulting the principal employee and misrepresenting the police officer, at around 03:50 on October 30, 2014, he was in possession of the Defendant, but tried to arrest the current criminal of the assault, who was in possession of the victim F, etc., who was in the position of the E district of Busan, and expressed his desire for a large volume of sound.

The part of the victim's arms is flickly flick, and the victim was assaulted by continuously flicking the victim's work clothes, flicking the head and body toward the wall.

Accordingly, the defendant, upon receiving a report 112, obstructed the police officer's lawful arrest of flagrant offenders.

2) According to the following facts, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties under the premise of lawful performance of official duties, since the instant arrest against the Defendant was illegally arrested under the circumstances where the certainty of the crime and the necessity of arresting the Defendant is not recognized.

① At the time of arrest of the flagrant offender in the instant case, F was only the horses of H, the main store of the instant case, and I, the main store of the instant case, and the Defendant’s above H.