All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles (as to the crime of Paragraph (1) of the original judgment), the police officer’s arrest of Defendant A as an offender constitutes a self-defense, and thus, Defendant A’s act committed to escape from the present illegal infringement on the body of the police officer due to such illegal arrest constitutes a self-defense. Defendant B’s act also constitutes self-defense, since Defendant A attempted to escape from the present illegal infringement on the body of the police officer due to the illegal arrest.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of eight months, a suspended sentence of two years, a community service order of 120 hours, Defendant B: fine of 3,00,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle, any person may arrest a flagrant offender without a warrant. In order to arrest a flagrant offender, the necessity of arrest, i.e., the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence, in addition to the punishment of the act, the current nature of the crime, and the apparentness of the crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029 delivered on January 26, 199). However, whether a person satisfies such requirements for the arrest of a flagrant offender shall be determined based on the situation at the time of the arrest, and there is a reasonable discretion in the judgment of the investigating entity. Considering the situation at the time of the arrest as the situation at the time of the arrest, the arrest of a flagrant offender cannot be deemed unlawful unless the judgment of the investigating entity on the requirements is considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical rule.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do5701 Decided June 11, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4227 Decided December 10, 2002, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the above legal principles are deemed to have been applied.