The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A fine of two million won shall be imposed on a defendant.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant does not have committed a mistake of facts with a franchising e and spherbling or assault F’s face.

B. Legal principles 1) If the Defendant called for the part of the obstruction of performance of official duties against slope E upon receiving a report as the victim, the Defendant had to inform the Defendant of the procedure for the obstruction of performance of official duties at the time, but only provided explanation about the situation of assault. Thus, the act of the Defendant cannot be viewed as legitimate performance of official duties, and the Defendant’s act against the obstruction of performance of official duties against the police officer F constitutes a legitimate act. 2) Considering that the Defendant’s act of provoking in the obstruction of performance of official duties against the Defendant was a legitimate act as seen above, and that the location of vision was in front of the Defendant’s house and there was no concern that the Defendant might escape or destroy evidence, arresting the Defendant as a flagrant offender of the obstruction of official duties against the Defendant, making it difficult to view that the arrest of the Defendant as a lawful performance of official duties is a legitimate act of self-defense.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant ex officio, each crime in the judgment of the lower court against the Defendant constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the Defendant’s punishment shall be set within the scope of a limited term of punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. However, the lower court erred by omitting heavy aggravation of concurrent crimes.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

B. According to Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act, determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, any person may arrest a flagrant offender without a warrant, and arrest a flagrant offender as a flagrant offender.