공무집행방해
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. On August 5, 2014, around 02:51, the Defendant voluntarily accompanied the said district area by not paying a taxi fee at the D District of Seongdong-gu Seoul Police Station located in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul. The Defendant paid a taxi fee from a slope E, a police officer belonging to the said district, to “I wish to enter the said district in a regular manner without paying a taxi fee,” and expressed to the said E as “I Chewing fright,” and brupted by a fluent hand.
Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the police officer's legitimate execution of duties and criminal investigation.
2. Although the Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion stated in the facts charged took a bath or assault against the police officer E, it is only an act in the process of resisting the police officer’s inappropriate performance of duties and protesting against the unlawful performance of duties. Thus, it does not constitute the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.
3. Determination
A. Any person may arrest a flagrant offender without a warrant.
(Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act). To arrest a flagrant offender as a flagrant offender, there should be concerns about the necessity of arrest, i.e., the necessity of escape or destruction of evidence, in addition to the punishment of the act, the current and time contact of the crime, and the apparentness of the crime, and the arrest of a flagrant offender who fails to meet such requirements constitutes illegal arrest without a warrant, which is not based on legal basis.
Here, the issue of whether a person satisfies the requirements for arrest of a flagrant offender should be determined based on the situation at the time of arrest, and the judgment of a prosecutor, judicial police officer, etc., such as prosecutor, judicial police officer, etc., has considerable discretion. However, in light of the situation at the time of arrest, if a prosecutor, judicial police officer, etc.’s judgment on whether the requirements are met is considerably unreasonable in light
Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4227 Delivered on December 10, 2002