공무집행방해등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently acknowledged that the defendant at the time of the instant case was under the influence of alcohol to inflict harm on his/her or another person's life, body, and property. Thus, it constitutes a case where a police officer can take appropriate measures, such as protecting the defendant in a police agency pursuant to Article 4(1)1 of the Act on the Performance
The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case on the premise that the defendant is not a person under relief as prescribed by the above provision is erroneous.
2. The duties of the police officer in charge of judgment do not limited to a criminal investigation, but also extend to the prevention and suppression of a crime, the protection of people's lives, bodies, and property, etc. (Article 2 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers). Accordingly, if a police officer finds a person who is likely to inflict any harm on himself/herself or another person's life, body, or property under influence of alcohol, the police officer may take appropriate measures, such as protecting the police officer (Article 4 (1) of the same Act), and if the police officer intends to inflict a criminal act on his/her own or a person, and if such act is likely to inflict any harm on people'
(Article 6 of the same Act). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court: (i) around 18:03 on August 6, 2013, the Defendant was an employee working in the restaurant, such as: (ii) the Defendant reported to the police; (iii) the police officer G and F arrived at the D restaurant at around 18:10; and (iv) the Defendant received a demand from J to the effect that “I will not carry on any other operation in the restaurant without going to the restaurant; (iv) the Defendant was unable to bring a disturbance without going to the restaurant; and (v) the Defendant went to the restaurant.”