위계공무집행방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, by calls to the public service center of the Japanese Embassy, made a statement as stated in the facts charged, and thereafter, the police officers called the Embassy to the Embassy by the report of its staff members.
At the time, the Defendant was unable to anticipate that police officers were dispatched to the Embassy due to their telephone, and there was no intention to do so.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
B. Even if a crime of interference with the execution of official duties by a deceptive scheme against an illegal defendant in sentencing is established, the sentencing of the lower court (one million won in punishment) is too unreasonable.
2. On January 22, 2015, around 13:15, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant reported the news that Dokdo was entered into the Japanese territory in the Japanese defense white book in the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and reported it to the Japanese Embassy’s civil petition office, although the Defendant did not think that Dokdo actually spread to the Japanese Embassy, the Defendant called “to break away the Japanese Embassy by going to the large number of the Japanese Embassy.” The said Embassy staff reported it to the police and sent 10 police officers, such as the police station D, etc. to the said Embassy.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties by fraudulent means.
3. In the case of interference with the execution of official duties through a deceptive scheme with the judgment on the grounds of appeal, the term “defensive scheme” means causing mistake, mistake, and land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of an actor’s act, and the other party uses the erroneous act or disposition accordingly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1554, Apr. 23, 2009). In this case, the facts charged in this case are likely to actually cause the defendant to spread the Japanese Embassy.