공무집행방해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. On December 4, 2017, around 07:35, the Defendant committed assault to the police officer on the following grounds: (a) one empty bottle (10cm x 16cm x 16cm) in front of the Defendant’s residence, who was asked questions about the instant situation from E by the security guards assigned to the Daegu Western Police Station D police box at the location of the Defendant of Daegu Seo-gu B apartment C, Daegu, which was called upon 112 reports; and (b) interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the said police officer’s report on the 112 report.
2. The lower court determined that the police officer did not carry or present a warrant against the Defendant, and did not have any circumstance to see the Defendant as a flagrant offender or quasi-flagrant offender, and entered the Defendant’s residence without the Defendant’s permission. The police officer’s above act cannot be deemed to constitute legitimate performance of official duties, and thus, found the Defendant not guilty of the obstruction of performance of official duties, which is premised on this, on
3. Whether the main reason for appeal is legitimate shall be determined objectively and reasonably based on the specific circumstances at the time of the act, and it shall not be determined ex post facto in pure objective criteria.
In light of the current situation at the time of the instant case, it can be deemed that the act of police officers entering the Defendant’s residence constitutes a crime place immediately after the crime was committed, or a person’s life, body, or property is likely to enter pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, and thus, it is lawful.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which held that the execution of duties by police officers who have access to the defendant's residence is not legitimate retroactively based on only the facts established ex post facto and as a result, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion
4. This.