[2] Whether an act that interferes with a public official’s official duties may be applied to the crime of interference with business (negative)

[3] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles on the ground that the act of fluoring the fluorous Dong, such as spawing the excreta on the books and the floor of the civil service center, constitutes a obstruction of duties by a police officer on the ground that he interfered with the duties of receiving civil petitions

1. As to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

The provision that the Act on Assembly and Demonstration requires a person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration to report certain matters to the chief of the competent police station in advance by ascertaining the nature, size, etc. of the outdoor assembly or demonstration in advance by such report, and protecting legitimate outdoor assembly or demonstration, and also requires the chief of the competent police station to prepare prior measures to maintain public safety and order by preventing any infringement of others or community interests through an outdoor assembly or demonstration (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do315, Apr. 27, 2004, etc.). It cannot be said that the above duty to report is exempted on the ground that there is a legitimate opinion to indicate through an outdoor assembly or demonstration (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do870, Aug. 14, 190, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of this part of the crime is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or misapprehension of legal principles, as alleged in the

2. As to interference with business

The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with another’s business by spreading false facts or by other deceptive means or by force. The legal interest protected by said Act is to protect the social and economic activities of a person through duties. However, the Criminal Act, separate from the crime of interference with business, stipulates that an act of obstructing the performance of duties of a public official by assault, intimidation, or deceptive means is an act of obstructing the performance of duties of a public official (Articles 136(1) and 137), and the legal interest protected by said Act is to protect the functions of a state or public institution specifically provided by public officials.

In light of the crime of obstruction of business and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties not only are protected and protected, but also the type of the crime of obstruction of business is more limited compared to the type of the crime of obstruction of business, the Criminal Act separate from the crime of obstruction of business shall be deemed to be punished for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties only when the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is interfered with by means of violence, intimidation, or deceptive scheme against public officials. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret that the crime of obstruction of business cannot be applied to the act of obstruction of official duties performed by public officials (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Do4166, Nov. 19, 2009).

In full view of the evidence in the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the charges of interference with the police officer's duties on the ground that the defendant committed an act of fluoring the excreta with Co-defendant 2, along with Co-defendant 2 of the court of first instance, by spreading the excreta to the books and the civil petition floor, and thereby obstructing the police officer's duties by force. However, in light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the legal principles as to the scope of the crime of interference with business, and it has affected the conclusion

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding obstruction of business should be reversed, and since the court below imposed a single punishment with the remaining crimes and concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the whole judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)