[1] The case affirming the judgment below which held that the residents in the redevelopment area installed a watch on the rooftop of a building against the removal, and the fire that occurred during the process of farming was caused by the fire from the fire of the Defendants and the deaf-mutes.

[2] The meaning of "legal performance of official duties" in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and the standard of determining legality of performing official duties concerning the suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes

[3] The case affirming the judgment below which acknowledged the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties against the Defendants on the ground that, in case where some police officers, who were in the course of some sculatorys and suppression operations, were killed or injured due to fire that was caused by a fire that was caused by a sculmic infection by the Defendant, etc., while the residents in the redevelopment area installed a watch on the rooftop of the building against the removal, and had been sculed, it cannot be deemed as unlawful

[1] Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 30, 136 (1), and 144 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and eight others

Defendants

Law Firm Shin-soo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2009No3108 decided May 31, 2010

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the cause of the instant fire

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance and the court below, in particular, the quantity of a fire revealed by the video screen as indicated in the holding, and the statements by police officers and the Defendants, on-site inspection records by the first instance court, and the expert opinion by the National Science Investigation Agency, the court below determined that the fire in this case was caused by the fire in this case, which was caused by the fire in the vicinity of the third floor of the lusium, and the fire was caused by the fire in this case, which was caused by the fire in the vicinity of the stairs of the third floor of the lusium, and the fire was caused by the fire in this case, which was destroyed by a large quantity near the first floor of the lusium. Accordingly, the court below found that the fire in this case was caused by the lusium that was caused by the fire in this case by the fire in this case beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence as a fact-finding court, and there was no violation of logical and empirical rules which found otherwise.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the legality of the police’s suppression operation of this case

A. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established only when a public official’s performance of official duties is lawful. Here, “legal performance of official duties” refers to cases where the act is within the abstract authority of a public official and satisfies the legal requirements and methods regarding specific performance of official duties. Meanwhile, prevention, suppression, and investigation of a crime constitutes a police officer’s performance of duties (Article 2 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers), and specific details and methods of a police officer’s performance of duties are delegated to a reasonable discretion based on a police officer’s professional judgment. Therefore, in cases where a police officer performs his/her duties to suppress and investigate a crime within the scope of his/her human and material capacity in light of specific circumstances, such performance of duties cannot be deemed unlawful unless it is deemed that a police officer’s performance of duties is considerably unreasonable because he/she loses objective legitimacy. In particular, in light of the specific risk of damage arising from the attitude of an illegal agriculture or the situation of a place where an agriculture is located, it shall be deemed unlawful.

B. In light of the facts acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the court below, the establishment and progress of the suppression operation of this case takes into account the possibility of serious infringement of public safety and order at the time. Accordingly, the police special forces with high level operational capabilities and experience were decided to enter early, and equipment was not necessary during the process of the suppression operation of this case. The operation of this case was conducted by the special police officers, who were directed at the scene of the suppression operation of this case, one and two times after the first entry, and the second entry. The fire of this case was conducted by the police officers who were directed at the scene of the suppression operation of this case, and were arrested most of the deaf and immediately after the second entry, and the second entry order of this case cannot be viewed as unlawful or unlawful in light of the legal principles as the crime of obstruction of performance of police duties, and it cannot be viewed as unlawful or unlawful in light of the above legal principles.

C. Examining the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legality of performing official duties in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)