The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) at the time of the instant case, the Defendant, while escaping from the demand of the police officer E to stop, did not comply with the demand of the police officer to present his/her identification card as he/she gets driven by E, and took a brupt position, such as speaking.

In this situation, E did not have to confirm the number plate of the defendant's taxi, and in the case of a corporation operating in the field like the above taxi, it does not guarantee that he can confirm the driver's vehicle number alone, and there was no legal ground for E to confirm the certificate of the driver's license of the taxi kept in the defendant's taxi.

If so, E does not know the dwelling of the defendant at that time.

Therefore, it was legitimate for E to arrest the Defendant as an offender in the act of committing an offense, and the Defendant’s assaulting E in response thereto constitutes interference with the execution of official duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for the arrest of flagrant offenders.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of arresting the Defendant as the current offender cannot be deemed a lawful arrest, and therefore, during the process of resisting the illegal arrest of E, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of assaulting the Defendant as a lawful one, solely on the ground that the Defendant did not comply with the request to present his/her identification card, based on the facts established by the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court.

Even if this does not constitute a crime of interference with the performance of official duties, it was found not guilty of the facts charged in this case.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, such judgment of the court below is justified, and contrary to the prosecutor's assertion.