[2] The case holding that the judgment below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the police officer's act constitutes legitimate non-explosion on the ground that the police officer's act constitutes legitimate non-explosion on the ground that it should be deemed that the police officer's act constitutes legitimate non-explosion on the ground that the police officer's act constitutes legitimate non-explosion on the ground that it is in violation of the legal principles, in case where the police officer was indicted for obstruction of performance of official duties, such as discovering and demanding a stop, demanding a stop, failing to stop, demanding cooperation in the front and stopping, making the cooperation in the front, refusing to stop and stop the front; and he demanded that the police officer comply with the request to stop and stop the front; and the defendant

[2] The case holding that in a case where police officers, who used a bicycle, discovered and demanded a stop of a bicycle, but failed to stop, notify his position and name to the effect that he cooperates in the inspection, and accordingly, requested a police officer to stop and stop the front and stop the stop, and accordingly he was indicted for obstruction of performance of official duties, etc., in view of the seriousness of the crime, relation with the crime, urgency of the situation, degree of suspicion, necessity of questioning, etc., in a case where police officers were indicted for obstruction of official duties, etc., on the ground that the police officer's non-examination of the police officer was illegal, and the police officer's non-examination of the police officer was ordered to stop the questioning about the suspect as stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers within the minimum extent permitted by social norms, and contrary to this, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the contents and limits of the non-examination of the police officer's non-examination of the suspect.

1. Article 1(1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "The purpose of this Act is to provide for matters necessary for police officers to protect the freedom and rights of the people and to maintain public order in society (limited to national police officers; hereinafter the same shall apply)" and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "the ex officio authority of police officers as prescribed by this Act shall be exercised to the minimum extent necessary to perform their duties and shall not be abused." Meanwhile, Article 3(1) of the Act provides that "Any police officer may stop questions by any person who has reasonable grounds to suspect that he has committed or is about to commit any crime, or who is deemed to have committed any crime that has already been committed or about to be committed, or any person who is deemed to have knowledge of such fact in connection with a crime, or who has already committed such crime, may ask questions to the police officer in question at the place against his will and may not request the police officer to accompany him to the police station or police station in question (hereinafter referred to as "the police officer in question")."

In full view of the above purpose, provisions, structure, etc. of the Act, in order to ask questions to a person subject to the provision of Article 3(1) of the Act, a police officer may suspend the relevant person in a reasonable manner acceptable by social norms within the minimum extent necessary for accomplishing the purpose, and may investigate whether he/she carries a deadly weapon in response to questions, in light of the severity of the crime, relevance to the crime, urgency of circumstances, degree of suspicion, necessity of questioning, etc.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted, the lower court determined that Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 3’s act of obstructing the performance of official duties by using Nonindicted Party 1’s force to arrest the bicycle at around 01:0 on February 15, 200, the Defendant was not guilty of the charges of obstruction of the performance of official duties by using Nonindicted Party 3’s force to arrest the bicycle at around 01:0, “The occurrence of the instant case using bicycles and the order for inspection and search of the bicycle” was spread to around 01:14, and the offender’s appearance was considered to be “a short-term head, color, locking, and locking the Defendant’s view that the Defendant’s act of obstruction of the performance of official duties by using Nonindicted Party 3’s force to arrest the bicycle at around 01:20, the lower court rejected Nonindicted Party 3’s request to stop the Defendant’s questioning, and the Defendant’s request to stop the Defendant’s act of obstruction of his official duties.”

However, examining the facts acknowledged by the court below in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it shall be deemed that police officers, who used bicycles in the vicinity of the place where the crime in this case, discovered and obstructed the defendant from the appearance of the crime in question, and prevented them from proceeding. The act of a police officer who used bicycles immediately after the occurrence of the crime in question, shall be deemed to have suspended in order to ask questions about the suspected facts to the persons provided for in Article 3 (1) of the Act in such a manner as to the minimum extent necessary for accomplishing the purpose, in view of the seriousness of the crime in question, relation with the crime, urgency of circumstance, degree of suspicion, necessity of questioning, etc. Thus, the court below found him not guilty on the part concerning obstruction of performance of official duties among the facts charged in this case as illegal for reasons stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the contents and limit of the non-examination inquiry and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

On the other hand, the part of injury and insult determined by the court below as not guilty is no longer maintained on the premise that the execution of official duties is legitimate, and the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety without further review.

3. 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 Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)