[2] The case holding that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is recognized in case where the police assigned at night duty did assault the police assigned for special guard on the ground that the police assigned for special guard at night did not check the scene and control immediately in response to

[2] In a case where a police officer on night duty was assaulted by a civil petitioner on the ground that the police officer on night duty should check the scene in response to the demand for illegal parking control and deliver it to the weekly worker, the case holding that the police officer on night duty constitutes the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties as a civil petition of the workers on night duty and security service, since the person on night duty did not have the right to regulate illegal parking, but delivers it to the related department on the next day after receiving a civil petition, and thus, the illegal parking control duty constitutes the "performance

In the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties under Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the term "execution of official duties" does not refer only to the case where a public official actually performs an act necessary for him/her to perform his/her duties, but also to the case where a public official is in the position of his/her official for his/her duties. According to the nature of his/her duties, it is reasonable to separate the process of performing his/her duties and to individually discuss the commencement and termination of his/her duties in part, or to understand it as a series of duties by combining various kinds of acts (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do383, Sept. 21, 199)

According to the records, the defendant found a lot of night watch rooms in Busan Seo-gu Office around the time of ruling and demanded the worker on duty to crack down on the road while there are many illegal parking vehicles in front of his residence. The non-indicted on duty confirms the previous illegal parking site in front of the apartment of this case that is less than a hundred thousand meters in the office on duty together with the defendant, and found that the defendant was unable to crack down on the night so that the control of the party room may be carried out by the defendant and the worker on duty at night at night, and that the defendant was able to crack down on the right of the non-indicted on one occasion with the hand floor, and that the workers on night duty did not have the right to crack down on the illegal parking, but at the time of entering the civil petition, he received the receipt and delivered the civil petition to the related department and processed it.

According to the above legal principles and these facts, the defendant's request for the regulation of illegal parking is also included in the security service of the non-indicted who was on duty at night in Busan Seo-gu Office. If the non-indicted confirmed the illegal parking of this case, which is a civil petition, and the defendant confirmed that the non-indicted was unable to check the illegal parking of this case, and the control of the party room at night, and if the defendant assaults the non-indicted on his hand, it may be deemed that he interfered with the non-indicted's execution of duties.

Nevertheless, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that there is no proof of crime against the defendant as to the facts charged in this case, and sentenced the defendant not guilty. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the scope of the public official's official's official authority and whether the above act of the non-indicted is included in the scope of his duties, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court 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)