The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows. Since the execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender by the police officer of this case constitutes a case where it is difficult to verify the identity of a insulting person A and thus, it is inevitable to collect evidence. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding the facts, although the defendant, who asserted against this violence, was found guilty of the crime of interference with the execution of official duties and

2. Determination

A. According to Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act, any person may arrest a criminal without a warrant. To arrest a criminal as the current criminal, there must be concerns about punishment for an act, the current temporal contact of the crime, and the necessity of arrest in addition to the apparentness of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029, Jan. 26, 199). However, whether a person satisfies the requirements for the arrest of a flagrant offender should be determined based on the situation at the time of the arrest, and there is room for considerable discretion in the judgment of the investigative body.

In light of the circumstances at the time of arrest, arrest of a flagrant offender cannot be deemed illegal unless the judgment by the investigative body on the requirements is considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do5701, Jun. 11, 2002; 2002Do4227, Dec. 10, 2002). (b) The court below and the court below revealed the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the court below, comprehensively taking into account the following facts, at the time of arrest of A as a criminal of insult, at the time of arrest of A as a police officer, A was in the crime of insult, and the personal information was not sufficiently verified. A’s act continues to take care of police officers who wear their uniforms while performing legitimate duties as a temporary and contingent act, and despite the police officers and police officers, it is difficult to see that A’s act was a temporary and contingent act.