All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The legality of the prosecutor’s appeal should be determined based on the specific circumstances at the time of arrest.

At the time, there was a confusion that the adult male was able to fluent by 6 men, and Defendant G was in the state of physical fighting with J or at least fighting immediately before the fighting. As such, Defendant G was in the state of fighting, there was sufficient reason to recognize Defendant G as a current criminal who assaulted Defendant G as the police officer.

Although the police officer F’s arrest of Defendant G in flagrant offender was not an unfair official duty, the police officer’s act of assaulting Defendant G, such as forcing Defendant F’s chest to force a police officer F’s chest, and Defendant F’s arms, and the act of merely passive resistance to prevent the police officer’s traffic, blocking the police officer’s traffic, and blocking the police officer’s traffic.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby acquitted the Defendants on the conduct of interfering with the performance of official duties.

2. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the Criminal Procedure Act recognize the arrest without a warrant against the current criminal as a legitimate act, and the warrant requirement exception should be strictly interpreted.

Therefore, in fact, it is not the current criminal, but the arrest is not legitimate if it is erroneous that it is the current criminal.

However, if there is a reasonable ground for mistake, there is no perception of illegality of arrest, or there is only a possibility that the responsibility for the act will be avoided.

Therefore, if the police officer resists against the suspect in the course of arresting him/her as a current offender, if the suspect was not the actual offender, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is not committed against the suspect due to lack of legitimacy of performing official duties.

Unlike this, the legality of the 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 was recognized as an ex post facto offender.