Today, those cases which drunk people are to be put to violent to police officers that perform the public service in the night are going to frequently. If a drunk man did a assault and intimidation to police officers that are performing a public service, he can be punished by public affairs executive interference sin, but if he tried only an abuse, he can be arrested and punished by contempt. But there is criticism that abuse the public authority for this. Whether arrest of flagrant delictor is legitimate, it is to be judged on the basis of the time of arrest situation, and police officers must have an accurate understanding of the requirements of arrest. For this, the law and judicial precedent must give an accurate guide line to police officers in order that able to arrest the culprit and to crush the crime. However, if there are different conclusions that the cases of two of judgment there is no difference, precedents of the court is not the role of the criteria was firmly in the investigation field of clear distinction, the side is that rather it was confusing. In order to solve this confusion, I think that “anxiety of flee or destroy evidence” shall be excluded as the requirements of a flagrant delictor, and if not a serious case or a urgent case need to determine whether there is a need to arrest.