The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles directly reported to 112 for the purpose of arresting sexual traffic offenders, and according to the above reporting, the police officers sent out pursuant to the above reporting transferred the flagrant offender and quasi-offenders of sexual traffic.

However, there is no fact that investigative agencies rather arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender and notify the principle of Disturbantism in the process.

Therefore, since the arrest of the defendant in the act of committing the crime is illegal, the defendant's act that occurred in the course of resistance is not a crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts is either carried out or immediately after the relevant crime is committed, any person may arrest a flagrant offender without a warrant (Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In order to arrest a flagrant offender, the need for arrest, i.e., the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence, in addition to the punishment of the act, the current and hourly contact of the crime, and the apparentness of the crime and the crime, should be determined based on the circumstances at the time of arrest. In addition, whether the requirements for arrest of a flagrant offender are satisfied should be determined on the basis of the circumstances at the time of arrest, and there is considerable discretion. Therefore, in light of the situation at the time of arrest, unless the judgment of the investigative body on the requirements is deemed unreasonable in light of the empirical rule, the arrest of a flagrant offender of the investigative body is not deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do13726, Feb. 18, 2016).