The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in the fact that the Defendant was faced with E’s neck by pushing the body of the circumstances E during the time of the instant case and head. However, the arrest of the Defendant in the act of committing an act of committing an offense is not recognized as the current nature of the offense, the contact between the time, the apparentness of the offense, and the need for arrest, and the Defendant did not receive the notification of the reasons for the arrest during the process of the instant arrest, and thus,

Therefore, the police officer E's act that prevented the defendant from going to the police box that he was brought to court after being brought to court does not constitute legitimate execution of official duties. Thus, the defendant's act does not constitute an element of obstruction of performance of official duties, or is dismissed as it constitutes legitimate self-defense.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.

2. The judgment of a flagrant offender may be arrested without a warrant (Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In order to arrest a flagrant offender, there must be concerns about the necessity of arrest, namely, the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence, and arrest of a flagrant offender who fails to meet such requirements constitutes illegal arrest without a warrant, which is not based on legal basis.

Here, whether a person satisfies the requirements for the arrest of flagrant offenders should be determined based on the situation at the time of arrest. In so doing, there is considerable discretion in the judgment of the investigative body, such as prosecutor or senior judicial police officer. However, if a prosecutor, senior judicial police officer, etc.’s judgment on whether the requirements are met is considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical rule even when considering the situation at

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do3682, May 26, 2011). The lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, as stated in its reasoning.