All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant (defluence of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle) (the police officer G) started the arrest of a flagrant offender at the same time, and did not meet the requirements at the time of the instant case. Even after completing the procedure for the arrest of a flagrant offender, the Defendant merely notified “influence of violence, business obstruction, and insult,” and “no other explicit opportunity to appoint a counsel” and “no other explicit opportunity to appoint a counsel.” As such, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legality of the performance of official duties, such as the time of commencement of the arrest of a flagrant offender and the requirements for the arrest of a flagrant offender, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles as to the charge of interference with business, since it is recognized that the defendant avoided the disturbance as shown in the facts charged, it can be seen as a "defensive force" of the crime of interference with business, and even if the defendant had an intention to interfere with business, the court below erred in

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of social service) is too uneasible and unfair.

The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties of public officials under abstract authority is a premise for the legitimate performance of official duties of public officials. Whether the performance of official duties of public officials is legitimate shall be determined objectively and reasonably based on the specific circumstances at the time of the act, and shall not be determined by pure objective criteria ex post facto.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do453, May 10, 1991). Likewise, the legality of the arrest of a flagrant offender shall be objectively determined based on the specific situation at the time of arrest, and it shall not be based on whether it is recognized as an ex post facto offender.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do4763, Oct. 23, 2013). Flagrant offenders are flagrant offenders.