A. At around 13:50 on August 28, 2015, Defendant A driven a F E-coo vehicle, a Defendant owned by the Defendant, on the road located in Pakistan, and was notified of the fact that he was assigned to him as a fine for violation of the Labor Standards Act, by the police officer assigned to the police box in patroling the Defendant, and was requested to accompany the police box to the “violation of the Labor Standards Act” by the police officer assigned to the police box in charge of patroling the place, and refused the request to accompany the vehicle to the police box, and attempted to depart from the said vehicle, and then the Defendant avoided the H, thereby pushing the Ha’s chest from the vehicle several times by hand.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers for the arrest of fine recipients.

B. Defendant B obstructed the arrest for about 10 minutes, including, at the time and place indicated in the preceding paragraph, Defendant B, on the ground that he attempted to arrest Defendant B, who was fluorous, who responded to the arrest of H and who assaulted H as a flagrant offender committing an obstruction of performance of official duties.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers for arresting flagrant offenders.

2. Determination

A. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established only when the performance of official duties is legitimate. Here, legitimate performance of official duties refers to not only the abstract authority of a public official but also the case meeting the legal requirements and methods for specific performance of duties. Thus, even if an act of assault or intimidation against a public official performing a lack of legitimacy is committed, it cannot be viewed as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4731, Oct. 28, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7514, Apr. 28, 2011). The detention of an employee who is punished by a fine is substantially the same as that of a person, and thus, its enforcement.