The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that committed the act of assaulting the police officer as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties because the police officer did not notify the defendant of the summary of the crime, the reason for arrest, and the fact that he could appoint a defense counsel (U.S. Principle) and arrested the defendant in flagrant offender by overfincing the defendant, and it cannot be deemed legitimate execution of official duties. The judgment of the court below that committed the act of assaulting the

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Articles 213-2 and 200-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, when a judicial police officer arrests a flagrant offender, he/she must be given an opportunity to defend himself/herself by stating the summary of the crime, the reason for detention, and the appointment of a defense counsel. Such notification should, in principle, be given prior to entering an exercise of the real force for arrest. However, if a police officer gets away from a flagrant offender or makes a de facto suppression against violence, the police officer’s arrest of a flagrant offender was lawful performance of his/her official duties even if he/she did not do so. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3640, Oct. 9, 2008; 208Do3640, Oct. 2, 2008).