B. Performance of official duties

(c) Contempt;

2.2.B

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of obstructing the performance of official duties against Defendant A by violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) and the Defendants is acquitted.

On April 16, 2014, around 01:30 on the street of the Busan-gu D building, Defendant A abused the victim by openly 50 people who were working for the F District of the Busan-gu Police Station, where 112 reported and sent out after receiving 112 reports from the staff of the main E branch in front of the D building in the Busan-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-do, where the victim of the F District of the F District of the Busan-gu Police Station who was called out after receiving the 112 report.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of witness G, H and I;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 311 of the Criminal Act; Fine

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Intimidation of groups, deadly weapons, etc.) and obstruction of performance of official duties among the facts charged in the instant case

A. Defendant A

Defendant A interfered with the legitimate execution of duties regarding criminal investigations by the above police officers, such as: (a) the above G was defective in arresting the Defendant as a flagrant offender; (b) the spath of flab in the above G’s flab; and (c) the spath of the above flab’s flab was found to have a defect in arresting the Defendant; and (d) the police flab in order to continuously arrest the Defendant; (b) the police flab in the above flab’s flab’s flab’s flab; and (c) the victim’s flab’s flab in the above flab’s flab’s flab, at the same time and at the above flab’s flab’s flab, the flab’s flab’s flab’s flab’s flab’s flab

B. Defendant B

피고인은 위 일시, 장소에서 위와 같이 경찰관들이 위 A을 현행범인 체포하려고 하자 위 G에게 "야 이 새끼들아 우리가 뭘 잘못했는데, 씨바 개새끼들아, 친구를 놔 둬라"고 욕설을 하면서 몸과 손으로 위 G의 가슴을 밀쳐 위 G의 범죄수사 및 현행범인 체포에 관한 정당한 직무집행을 방해하였다.

2. Determination

As a requirement for the arrest of flagrant offenders, there is a need for arrest, i.e., the necessity of arrest in addition to the severity of the act, the current and time contact of the crime, and the apparentness of the offender and the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029, Jan. 26, 199). In addition, if the police officer’s act of arresting flagrant offenders is bound to be deemed to have illegally arrested the police officer out of lawful performance of official duties, and it is inevitable to view that the act of arresting the police officer was illegal, it constitutes self-defense as an act to escape from the current infringement of body caused by illegal arrest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2732, Nov. 23, 2006). According to the records of this case, the illegality of Defendant A’s act of inflicting bodily injury on the police officer in the course of resisting the arrest.

The following facts are acknowledged: (a) I kn’s shoulder that I want to explain to G in his hands; (b) I misunderstanding that the Defendant was fluencing the Defendant to pay a trial expense to him; and (c) I am intending to arrest the said Defendant as a flagrant offender; (b) G tried to arrest the said Defendant as a flagrant offender; (c) the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, she saw a slope He’s bridge; (d) the police Ha’s chest on the police bridge was fluor; and (e) he was fluoring a beer disease in a freight difference of 10 meters away from the 10-meter size; and (e) as seen above, Defendant B, a police official, who was taking a defect in arresting A as a flagrant offender, took a bath against A, and fluoring the chest of G.

According to the above facts, even if the time when G was to arrest Defendant A as a flagrant offender was immediately after the commission of the offense of insult, it is difficult to view that the police officers and 50 witnesses near the time took the above A’s bath, and thus, there is a concern that the Defendant might flee or destroy evidence. In addition, given that the Defendant’s insult committed temporary and contingent acts committed in the course of resisting G’s speech and intent, and the contents of the offense are insignificant, G, a police officer, could not be deemed to have committed an imminent situation to immediately arrest the said Defendant at the scene of the offense.

Therefore, since the police officer’s arrest of Defendant A cannot be deemed lawful performance of official duties because it did not meet the elements of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, the above act by the defendant A and the above act by the defendant B in the process of resisting the above act by the defendant during the process of resisting the above act by the defendant A and the arrest by the police officer against the defendant A constitutes legitimate self-defense, and thus, it constitutes legitimate self-defense.

Therefore, in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the facts charged in the instant case shall be acquitted as to the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a collective action, threat of deadly weapons, etc.) against Defendant A and the obstruction

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.