All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the event that the Defendant was arrested by mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles, there was a concern that the Defendant might flee or destroy evidence.

As such, the arrest of a flagrant offender against the defendant is illegal.

The crime of this case is a legitimate defense since it occurred in the process of resisting the defendant to escape from the above arrest.

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. According to the relevant legal principles, Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act, a person can arrest a criminal without a warrant. Thus, in order to arrest a criminal as the current criminal, there must be concerns about punishment for an act, the current situation of the crime, and the necessity of arrest, i.e., the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence in addition to the apparentness of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029, Jan. 26, 199). However, whether a person satisfies the requirements for the arrest of a flagrant offender should be determined based on the situation at the time of the arrest, and there is considerable room for discretion in determining the subject of investigation.

In light of the circumstances at the time of arrest, arrest of a flagrant offender cannot be deemed illegal unless the judgment of the investigative body on the requirements is considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do5701, Jun. 11, 2002; 2002Do4227, Dec. 10, 2002). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below found that the police officer at the time of arrest of a flagrant offender was K apartment and the defendant was the principal of a school, but it is acknowledged that the police officer was the principal of a school, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence are acknowledged, namely, the police officer dispatched upon receiving a report of a guard guard revealed the status of the police officer.