The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

B A fine of 5,00,000 won, Defendant C shall be punished by fine of 1,00,000 won, and Defendant D.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principle as to the acquitted portion) acquitted the Defendants on the charge of obstructing the performance of official duties.

However, at the time of the instant case, N &O suffered from violence by Defendant B

In full view of the fact that Defendant B stated to the police officer, Defendant B made a noise at the scene at the time, and refused to confirm the personal information of the police officer, etc., the police officer satisfied the requirements for arresting the offender in the act of committing an offense against Defendant B.

Since there are reasonable grounds for determining that the Defendants’ resistance to the arrest of a police officer in the act of resistance constitutes a crime of interference with the execution of official duties.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendants as to the obstruction of the performance of official duties is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants: (a) at around 01:20 on February 9, 2016, the Defendants: (b) expressed a desire to arrest Defendant B as the current criminal of assault; (c) Defendant B expressed that “I Y, in accordance with the police system; (d) Ma, who was dispatched to the scene after receiving a report of assault in front of the I building in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, to arrest Defendant B as the current criminal of assault; and (e) assaulted the said M’s chest by hand.

Defendant

C. The Defendant D participated in this and expressed his desire to “Chewing guard,” and assaulted the chest of the above M on several occasions.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the prevention and suppression of crimes.

3. The decision of the court below is not clear that the police officer M's act of arresting Defendant B is the person immediately after the commission of the crime, in light of all the circumstances at the time of arrest, and thus, the judgment of the investigative body on the requirements is considerably lacking rationality in light of the empirical rule. The arrest of the flagrant offender against Defendant B is illegal as long as it is illegal.