The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Since the police officer's dispatch of the summary of the grounds for appeal did not meet the requirements for arrest of a flagrant offender since the police officer failed to meet the requirements for arrest of a flagrant offender since the police officer arrested the defendant as an offender in the act of committing an act of resistance to escape from the said requirements is illegal performance of official duties, such act of resistance cannot be deemed as self-defense and obstructing the performance of official duties

In addition, even if the Defendant did not insult the police officer as stated in the judgment of the court below, even if he did so, it is not illegal because it was caused by the lack of performance and resistance to illegal detention.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, and sentenced the Defendant guilty.

B. Even if the court below found the defendant guilty of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the obstruction of performance of official duties (i.e., the execution of duties and the legality of arrest of flagrant offenders, and evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it cannot be said that the police officer prevented the act of the defendant, arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender constitutes legitimate performance of official duties, and that there was any error in the process

① On the day of the instant case, the police officer was dispatched after receiving a report that the Defendant was assaulted at the “M” heading on the Defendant’s operation. At the time of the dispatch, the police officer was forced to restrain the Defendant by making a police officer’s attempt to keep the Defendant by drinking soldiers while intending to keep the Defendant, even though the Defendant was satisfed by a man, and only attempted to keep the Defendant.

② As such, it could not be deemed that the Defendant’s assault situation was completely terminated because the Defendant attempted to continue E, and the police officer as a police officer includes the Defendant’s assault act against E.