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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On August 5, 2012, at the “D restaurant” located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, on August 21:5, 2012, the Defendant took a bath to the slope F belonging to the Daejeon District E-gu, Daejeon, Police Station E-gu, Daejeon, where the Defendant was reported and sent to the Defendant, and obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate performance of duties regarding the police officer’s criminal investigation, etc. by committing assault, such as: (a) the Defendant arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender; and (b) the said F arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender; and (c) one time the knee part of the F’s head at the left hand in the patrol car; and (d) the Defendant interfered with the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning criminal investigation, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G, H, F, and I;

1. Each police statement made to G, H and F;

1. A written arrest of a flagrant offender;

1. Application of damaged photographs and CCTV photographing statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The assertion;

A. Since the duty of the police officer at the time when the defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender was lacking in legitimacy for the following reasons, the defendant's act constitutes legitimate self-defense as an act to escape from the present illegal infringement on the body caused by illegal arrest.

1. In order to arrest a flagrant offender who fails to meet the requirements for the arrest of a flagrant offender, there is 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, the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence. ① Since the Defendant’s assault against the G et al. led the Defendant to go out of a restaurant, the illegality as self-defense is excluded, and ② the arrest of a flagrant offender was already completed, and thus, it cannot be viewed as immediately after the commission of the crime. ③ The Defendant is a human resources presentation office.