The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not assault police officers dispatched at the time and place indicated in the facts charged in the instant case.

B. D, who was arrested as a flagrant offender by police officers, did not assault K, which is a taxi engineer, at the time and place indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, and even if a police officer committed domestic violence, D does not constitute a flagrant offender since the time when the police officer was called out was the time after the act of assault was completed. Since police officers did not notify D of the reason for arrest and the appointment of a defense counsel while arresting D, the execution of official duties was not legitimate.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute an obstruction of performance of official duties.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts was examined as to whether the police officers assaulted at the date and place indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant interfered with the arrest of the police officers H and I who attempted to arrest D as a flagrant offender. During that process, the Defendant’s head was examined, and the fact at H’s time when the Defendant’s c

B. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding the assertion of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is a premise for a legitimate performance of official duties by a public official. Whether a performance of official duties by a public official belonging to an abstract authority is legitimate ought to be objectively and reasonably determined based on the specific situation at the time of the act, and not be determined based on pure objective criteria ex post (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do453, May 10, 1991). Likewise, the legality of arrest of a flagrant offender should be objectively determined based on the specific situation at the time of arrest, and should not be based on whether it is recognized as an ex post facto offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do4763, Aug. 23, 2013). 2) Specifically, in