The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On February 20, 2014, at around 21:30, the Defendant received 112 report from the Defendant’s residence located in Ulsannam-gu C apartment 209 dong 703, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, 2014, stating that “The Defendant wishes to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender” from the Ulsannam Police Station E-gu, Ulsannam Police Station E-gu, Ulsannam Police Station E-gu, and told that “the Defendant will arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender” from the above F, and, at the same time, he sent the F’s work mother one time to the Defendant, and served as drinking, as the Defendant would have served in the above F.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties against the arrest of police officers.

2. Determination

A. Legal doctrine 1) The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established only when the performance of official duties is legitimate. Here, legitimate performance of official duties refers to not only the abstract authority of a public official, but also the case meeting the legal requirements and methods for specific performance of official duties. Thus, even if an act of assault or intimidation against a public official performing a lack of legitimacy is committed, it cannot be deemed that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7259, Mar. 14, 2013). 2) In order to arrest a flagrant offender as a flagrant offender, arrest need, namely, the necessity of arrest, namely, the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence, and arrest of a flagrant offender who fails to meet these requirements constitutes illegal arrest as a warrant without legal basis.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029, Jan. 26, 1999). Whether a person satisfies the requirements for the arrest of a flagrant offender should be determined based on the situation at the time of arrest, and the subject of investigation, such as a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer, should be determined.