The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On October 23, 2016, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant: (b) at the Defendant’s home located in Kubu-si, the government around 22:42 on October 23, 2016, at the Defendant’s house; (c) the police officer, a police officer belonging to the D District Unit, dispatched after receiving a report from the Defendant’s leakage or 112; and (d) the Defendant’s slope, a police officer called for the D District Unit, listen to the circumstances of the assault against the Defendant; (b) under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant

Since then, the Defendant carried in a balth of Ealthical slope by his hand with his own damage, and flapsed up in twice the left face of E slope by drinking, and flapsed up on the side.

D At each time, the F chump, the police officer belonging to the Rabal zone, and the left side knife.

Accordingly, the Defendant assaulted police officers as above and interfered with the police officers’ legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of 112 reported duties.

2. Determination

A. Under the relevant legal principles, any person may arrest a flagrant offender without a warrant (Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act), and in order to arrest a criminal as the current criminal, there must be concerns over the necessity of arrest, namely, the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence, in addition to the punishment of an act, the current temporal contact of the crime, and the apparentness of the crime. The arrest of a flagrant offender who fails to meet such requirements constitutes an illegal arrest without a warrant, which is not based on legal basis.

In this context, whether a person satisfies the requirements for arrest of flagrant offenders should be determined based on the situation at the time of arrest. Although there is considerable discretion in the judgment of a prosecutor or a judicial police officer, etc., in light of the situation at the time of arrest, if a prosecutor or a judgment by a judicial police officer, etc. on whether the requirements are met is considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical rule, such arrest should be deemed unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do4227, Dec. 10, 2002; 201Do3682, May 26, 201). Meanwhile, interference with the performance of official duties prescribed in Article 136 of the Criminal Act is committed.