The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle) does not contain any fact that the Defendant lying a police officer into drinking.

In addition, the act of arresting a police officer as an act of interference with business even though the defendant did not engage in an act of interference with business, constitutes illegal performance of official duties. Thus, even if the defendant committed the same act as stated in the facts charged in the process of resistance, it constitutes self-defense.

2. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties is a premise of a legitimate performance of official duties by a public official. Thus, whether a certain performance of official duties by a public official belonging to an abstract authority is legitimate shall be determined objectively and reasonably based on the specific circumstances at the time of the act, and it

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do453, May 10, 1991). Likewise, the legality of the arrest of a flagrant offender shall be objectively determined based on the specific situation at the time of arrest, and it shall not be based on whether it is recognized as an ex post facto offender.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do4763 Decided August 23, 2013, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① E, etc., a police officer, upon receipt of 112 report (Evidence No. 26 pages) that “A, etc., being a police officer, etc., takes a bath for drinking inside a bus, and fright to walk in the bus,” discovered the Defendant who is going to the site and is going to the bus, ② at the time, the police officers demanded identification and escape from the bus, ② the Defendant continued to demand identification and escape from the bus, ③ the police officers informed the Defendant that he would arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender, ③ the police officers informed the Defendant that he would arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender, and brought the Defendant in the bus. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant fright the face of the police officer; and (b) the police officers forced the Defendant while suppressing the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant frighting the Defendant.