All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) F (hereinafter “F”) arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, which does not interfere with the performance of official duties, (i). At the time, the Defendant merely refused to take a drinking test due to a drinking reduction of alcohol, and (ii) cannot be deemed to constitute a flagrant offender in the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (i.e., refusal of a drinking measurement) and thus, the Defendant’s arrest of the Defendant cannot be a lawful flagrant offender.

In addition, the Defendant did not commit an assault that he had F go beyond the body, and that F already started to arrest a flagrant offender due to an act that the Defendant was unable to have any other place. Thus, even if there was some physical contact between the Defendant and F in the course of illegal arrest of flagrant offenders, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties cannot be established.

B) In addition, since the Defendant received and rejected the demand for measurement of drinking in an illegal arrest state, the Defendant cannot establish a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement of drinking).

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) In order to determine the credibility of the statement after the first instance court proceeded with the witness examination procedure, the existence of credibility should be assessed by taking into account all the circumstances that are difficult to record in the witness examination protocol, including whether the content of the statement itself conforms to the rationality, logic, inconsistency, or rule of experience, evidence or third party’s statement, and whether it conforms to the witness evidence or third party’s statement after being sworn in the presence of a judge, and the appearance or attitude of the witness who is engaged in the statement in the open court after being sworn in the presence of a judge.

On the other hand, the appellate court's credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court under the current Criminal Procedure Act is judged.