[2] In a case where the defendant was indicted for interfering with the execution of his duties by threatening Gap who was selected as a "self-support worker" under the National Basic Living Security Act and worked as a public official in charge of social welfare affairs of the residents' self-governing center, the case affirming the judgment below holding that Gap was not a public official

In criminal law, "public official" refers to a person who is engaged in the affairs of the State or local governments or other public corporations equivalent thereto and whose contents of labor are not limited to a simple mechanical or physical work (see Supreme Court Decision 77Do3709 delivered on April 25, 1978).

Examining the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s judgment, and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable to have determined that, at the time of the instant crime, the pre-employed person, who was selected as a self-support worker and worked as a public official in charge of social welfare assistance pursuant to Article 15(1)4 of the National Basic Living Security Act, Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 25 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, could not be deemed to have been in charge of official duties. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)