[농지개간공사에대한방해배제청구사건][고집1962형,309]
Sexual assault and obstruction of the performance of official duties by police officers who have been investigated voluntarily;
Since police officers request a defendant to produce a Domination on the ground that the defendant's Domination was not complied with, if the defendant committed violence against the police officer and escaped from another suspect due to such gap, it does not exist that the defendant is performing official duties at the time. Therefore, the defendant shall not be held liable for obstruction of performance of official duties.
Article 136 of the Criminal Act
[Plaintiff, Appellant] 78Do2134 decided Oct. 10, 1978 (Art. 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, 138, Ka12018, No. 263-62, Gong601, Gong6031)
Defendant 1 and one other
Defendants
Gwangju District Court of the first instance (4294 type ball142)
All of the indictments are dismissed.
One hundred days from among the days under detention before a judgment in the trial is rendered shall be included in the principal sentence of the first instance by the accused, etc.
On April 28, 1961, the Defendant et al., in collusion with Nonindicted 1 on April 28, 1961, and caused injury to the Defendant et al., i.e., the first knife column of the second knife column of the second knife column of the second knife column of the second knife column of the second knife of the second knife of the second knife of the second knife, the second knife of the second knife, the second knife of the second knife of the second knife, the second knife of the second knife, which
evidence scliffing,
1. Statements and statements consistent with the judgment of the defendant, etc. in the original or a trial;
2. Statement in response to the judgment of Non-Indicted 2 by the Gwangju District Court's wooden branch and by Non-Indicted 2 at the Criminal Prosecution of the Gwangju District Court
3. From among the medical statements with respect to Nonindicted 2 prepared by the doctor Nonindicted 3, it can be recognized as a description responding to the injury level and degree as indicated in the judgment, there is sufficient proof.
The so-called "legal keeping stand" and the judgment of the defendant, etc. fall under Articles 257 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, and so-called falls under the prescribed penalty, so the defendant, etc. shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor within the scope of the term of punishment, and 200 days out of the number of detention days before the sentence of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above principal sentence.
On April 28, 1961, 17:20, the facts charged against the defendant et al. were that the defendant et al. failed to comply with the request of the non-indicted 2 to carry out the crime of obstruction of the performance of his duties to the non-indicted 1, the defendant et al., and the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2, the defendant et al. failed to comply with the request of the non-indicted 1 to carry out the crime of obstruction of the performance of his duties to the non-indicted 2, the defendant et al., the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 1, the defendant's.
Therefore, not guilty should be pronounced on this point, but since the whole and part of the facts of the indictment and the injury of the former recognition are related to the crimes in relation to the contents of the indictment, in particular, the sentence of innocence should not be pronounced on the same part. Thus, the judgment of the court below is superior to the reasons, but this is in line with the results, and the main indictment of the defendant et al. eventually leads to the conclusion that
Therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Addenda to the amended Criminal Procedure Act and Paragraph 2 of Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act before the amendment, each of them is dismissed, and it is decided as per Disposition by Article 57 of the Criminal Act.
Judges Lee Il-il (Presiding Judge)