The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The defendant above.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding and hearing of facts), CCTV, recording files, testimony of police officers, etc., it is recognized that the defendant obstructed the police officer I's legitimate arrest of a police officer A in the act of committing an act of committing an act of violence, walking the sway, and obstructing the police officer's legitimate arrest of a police officer H in the act of committing an act of violence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in finding facts and incomplete hearing.

2. Determination

A. On July 22, 2017, at around 03:33, the Defendant: (a) assaulted the Defendant at the “F” point located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E and the first floor (hereinafter “instant main point”); (b) the Defendant: (c) arrested the Defendant as a current offender of the interference with the performance of his official duties from the police officer belonging to the G District of the Seoul Gwanjin-gu Police Station G District; (d) sent the Defendant’s cell phone with the Defendant’s cell phone, she was arrested of the Defendant as a current offender of the interference with the performance of his official duties; (c) the Defendant was arrested by the police officer belonging to the G District of the Seoul Gwanjin-gu Police Station; and (d) the Defendant was arrested of the Defendant as a current offender of the interference with the performance of his official duties from the head of the police station located in India, she assaulted the Defendant’s Ha’s

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

B. The lower court, on the grounds of its ruling, found that the Defendant intentionally set the police officer I's instructions on the part of the police officer I, with respect to the obstruction of the performance of official duties of I, on the part of the Defendant.

It is difficult to view the instant facts charged, and on the grounds that it is difficult to view the police officer’s arrest as a legitimate arrest with respect to the interference with H’s performance of official duties, it was not guilty of the instant facts charged.

(c)

1) In order to arrest a flagrant offender as a flagrant offender, there is a concern about the punishment of the act, the temporal contact between the present situation of the crime, the necessity of arrest, i.e., escape or destruction of evidence, in addition to the apparentness of the crime, in order to arrest the flagrant offender without a warrant (Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act).