Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and Prosecutor

Park Byung-kil

Busan District Court Decision 2003Ma64,212 (Consolidated) Decided May 27, 2005

All appeals by Defendant 1 and Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Since Defendant 1 did not have any physical contact between Nonindicted 1 Prosecutor and Nonindicted 4’s leader, there is no fact that there was any assault or injury to Nonindicted 1 Prosecutor.

(2) Legal principles

Inasmuch as the prosecutor did not meet the requirements of emergency arrest at the time of investigating Defendant 2, it constitutes an illegal arrest to force Defendant 2 to attach the prosecutor room. Accordingly, even if Nonindicted 1’s or Nonindicted 4’s guidance was spreaded or pushed down to escape this, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties or of assault does not constitute an element of a crime. In addition, the crime of injury does not constitute a crime of obstruction of official duties or of assault as an act to escape from the present unfair infringement on the body, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of self-defense.

B. Public Prosecutor (Defendant 2)

According to the various evidences submitted by the prosecutor, including Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 3’s statements in the original trial court and the prosecutor’s office, Defendant 2 conspiredd with Defendant 1, and committed an act of assaulting Nonindicted 1’s body by leaving the prosecutor’s room and having Nonindicted 4 arms with his left hand on one occasion, etc., the charges of obstruction of the performance of official duties and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and the charges of violating the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act, and Defendant 2 committed an act of assaulting Nonindicted 3 to take Nonindicted 2 into the attorney’s office, making Nonindicted 2 make Nonindicted 3 give a false testimony while preparing the examination of witness, and on the other hand, found Defendant 2 guilty of the charges of the perjury and perjury. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, which led to the misunderstanding of the facts against the rules of evidence, thereby readily acquitted Defendant 2 on the part of Defendant 2.

2. Determination on Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the court below, it is difficult for the prosecutor to find out Nonindicted 1 to find out the facts of the crime of this case and to find out the fact that Nonindicted 1 had been employed by Nonindicted 4 as a witness at the time of the crime of this case, and that Nonindicted 1 had been employed by Nonindicted 5’s prosecutor’s office and the head of the above defendant’s office to summon Nonindicted 2, who is an attorney at the time of the first instance trial. In light of the fact that the above defendant’s office had been employed by Nonindicted 1, the prosecutor’s office and the head of the above defendant’s office to find out the facts of the crime of this case, and that there was no time to find out the facts of the crime of this case, such as the victim’s injury caused by the crime, and the victim’s behavior and its degree immediately after the crime of this case (the court below’s testimony that Nonindicted 2 had been employed by Nonindicted 1, 200 and the prosecutor’s office of the first instance, followed Defendant 1’s non-indicted 1’s office.

B. As to the misapprehension of legal principle

According to the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below, although the prosecutor voluntarily attended and was investigated by the defendant 2, the prosecutor of the non-indicted 1 did not have any urgency in the emergency arrest of the defendant 2, considering that the defendant 2 was suspected of perjury and perjury in the process of the quality investigation between the defendant 2 and the non-indicted 3, and the defendant 2 was investigated by the suspect. The defendant 2, who was investigated, asked the defendant 1 to return to the defendant 1. The defendant 1 was found to be the prosecutor's office and the prosecutor's office, ordered the defendant 2 to leave the prosecutor's office immediately. In light of the above circumstances at the time, it cannot be objectively found that there was no urgency in the emergency arrest of the defendant 2. Thus, it is hard to find that the emergency arrest of the defendant 2 was not reasonably reasonable despite the lack of objective grounds for the emergency arrest of the defendant 2.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. Facts charged against Defendant 2

피고인 2는 피고인 1 변호사사무실 사무장인바, (1) 인천지방검찰청 부천지청 공소외 1 검사가 2002. 11. 25. 인천지방법원 부천지원에서 무죄판결이 선고된 피고인 1에 대한 별건 위증교사 등 사건에 대하여 항소를 제기하고 위 별건과 관련한 위증 혐의로 피고인을 위 부천지청 408호 검사실로 소환하여 조사하는 도중, 피고인이 피고인 1에게 전화하여 위와 같은 내용으로 피고인으로 조사를 받고 있으니 검사실에서 나가게 도와달라고 하자 피고인 1은 그 위증 혐의 사실에 대하여 피고인을 상대로 한 수사가 완료될 경우 항소심에서 위 사건에 대한 무죄판결이 취소되고 유죄취지의 판결을 받게 될지 모른다는 우려를 한 나머지 피고인을 도주하게 하여 수사를 방해하기로 하고, 피고인 1과 공모공동하여, 2003. 1. 3. 15:30 경 위 408호 검사실에서 피고인 1은 위 검사실의 문을 열고 들어가 위증 혐의에 대한 피고인 자격으로 조사를 받고 있는 피고인에게 큰소리로 “야, 너 빨리 나와”라고 말하는 한편 공소외 1 검사에게 피고인을 조사에 응하게 할 수 없다는 취지로 말하고, 이에 공소외 1 검사가 피고인 1에게 피고인에 대한 수사는 정당한 절차에 따른 것이고 피의자신문조사를 마친 후 피고인을 긴급체포할 예정이므로 더 이상 수사를 방해하지 말고 검사실에서 퇴거하라고 말하고 피고인 1의 지시에 따라 자리에서 일어나는 피고인에게 “지금부터 긴급체포한다”고 고지하며 도망가려는 피고인을 몸으로 막으며 제지하자, 피고인은 양손으로 공소외 1 검사의 몸을 밀어제끼고, 피고인 1은 가세하여 팔로 공소외 1 검사의 몸을 밀어붙여 위 검사로 하여금 중심을 잃고 넘어지며 왼팔 부분을 검사실 내에 있는 철제 문틀에 부딪치게 하고, 위 검사실 소속 검찰주사보 공소외 4가 이를 제지하고 피고인을 체포하려고 손으로 피고인의 왼팔을 잡자 피고인은 왼손으로 공소외 4의 팔을 1회 치고, 피고인 1은 가세하여 왼팔로 공소외 4의 가슴 부분을 강하게 밀어제끼고 피고인으로 하여금 도주하게 하여 공소외 1 검사 및 공소외 4의 조사, 체포 등 수사업무를 방해함과 동시에 공소외 1 검사에게 약 2주간 및 추가 2주간의 치료를 요하는 좌측팔꿈치 좌상 등을 가하고, (2) 피고인 1 변호사가 1998. 4. 10. 부동산중개업자인 공소외 3으로부터 동녀가 같은 공소외 6으로부터 아파트 전세계약을 중개하고 법정 중개수수료 상한인 16만 6천 원을 초과한 25만 원을 중개수수료로 받은 부동산중개업법위반으로 약식기소(벌금 50만 원)됨으로써 부동산중개인 자격 취소의 행정처분을 받게 될 위험에 처하게 되었는데 이를 면할 방법이 있는지에 대하여 상담을 받고 변호인으로 선임된 다음 위 약식기소 사건에 대하여 정식재판을 청구하여 변론하는 과정에서 공소외 3으로부터 중개수수료 25만 원을 받은 것이 사실이라는 취지로 그 내용을 구체적으로 파악하고 나서 공소외 3에게 법정에서 이를 사실 그대로 인정하면 유죄판결을 받게 되고 이에 따라 부동산중개인 자격이 취소되는 것을 피할 길이 없으므로 법정에서 일단 사실관계를 부인해야 된다는 취지로 말하는 한편, 사실관계를 부인하는 데 부합하는 자료를 만들어 오라는 취지로 유도하고, 얼마 후 공소외 3이 평소 친하게 지내며 철물점을 운영하는 공소외 7에게 부탁하여 그로부터 그의 처인 공소외 2 명의로 작성한 “ 공소외 3이 25만 원을 받은 것은 사실이나, 이는 중개수수료 및 중개대상 아파트의 출입문 열쇠 수리비도 포함되어 있었던 것이다”라는 취지의 영수증을 건네받은 다음, 그 영수증 및 그 영수증과 같은 취지로 작성된 공소외 6의 허위 진술서를 피고인 1에게 갖다 주었고, 그 즉시 피고인 1은 공소외 3으로부터 위 영수증 및 진술서의 작성경위 등에 관하여 상세히 들어 그 내용이 모두 허위임을 잘 알고 있었음에도, 인천지방법원 부천지원 형사 2단독 법정에서 재판장 공소외 8이 심리중인 공소외 3에 대한 부동산중개업법위반 사건에 공소외 6이 계속 증인으로 불출석하여 유죄판결을 받을 위험이 높게 되자, 공소외 3에게 “ 공소외 6이 증인으로 출석하여 엉뚱한 소리를 하느니 차라리 공소외 2로 하여금 위 영수증에 기재된 내용이 사실인 것처럼 증언하도록 하자”라고 제안하면서 이를 승낙한 공소외 3에게 공소외 2를 피고인 1 변호사 사무실로 데려오도록 부탁하는 한편, 피고인에게 공소외 3과 함께 공소외 2가 변호사 사무실에 오면 공소외 2로 하여금 사실은 위 영수증에 기재된 내용의 아파트 문열쇠 수리부탁 및 그 수리비용을 공소외 3으로부터 직접 받은 사실이 없음에도 공소외 2에게 공소외 3으로부터 위 포도마을 (상세동·호수 생략)의 현관 및 안방 잠금장치를 교체하였고, 공소외 3으로부터 교체비용도 받았다는 내용의 허위사실을 마치 경험하여 기억이 나는 것처럼 분명하게 증언하여 줄 것을 가르쳐주라고 말하고, 피고인은 공소외 3이 초과수수료를 받았다는 사실을 피고인 1 변호사로부터 듣고, 또한 공소외 3과 전화통화를 통하여 잘 알고 있음에도 불구하고 피고인 1 변호사의 지시대로 그 무렵 공소외 2에게 허위의 증언을 하도록 교사하고, 2001. 7. 26. 16:00경 위 법원 형사 2단독 재판장 공소외 8이 심리중인 제352호 법정에서 피고인의 교사에 따라 공소외 2가 변호인측 증인으로 출석하여 피고인 1 변호사의 “증인은 부천시 원미구 중동 1170 포도마을 (상세동·호수 생략)에 현관 및 안방잠금장치를 교체해 준 사실이 있지요”라는 질문에 “예, 있습니다”, “당시 누구로부터 부탁을 받고 교체를 하였나요”라는 질문에 “ (상호 생략)의 공소외 3씨입니다”, “그 당시 사람이 살고 있는 상태에서 교체를 하였나요”라는 질문에 “빈 상태에서 교체한 것으로 알고 있습니다”, “증인의 가게에서 일하는 남자 종업원이 가서 교체를 해주었다는 것인가요”라는 질문에 “예, 그렇습니다”, “당시 교체비용은 누구로부터 받았나요”라는 질문에 “ 공소외 3씨입니다.”, 재판장의 “좀 전에 검사가 당시 누구로부터 부탁을 받고 교체를 하였나요 라고 물으니까 (상호 생략)의 공소외 3씨입니다 라고 대답하지 않았나요”라는 질문에 “수리를 했던 종업원과 이야기를 해보니까 그 종업원이 일을 한 것은 분명했습니다”, 재판장의 “그렇다면 피고인이 부탁했다는 것은 어떻게 해서 알고 있는가요”라는 질문에 “종업원으로부터 이야기를 들었습니다”, 재판장의 “그때 잠금장치를 교체해달라는 부탁을 증인이 직접 받아서 저에게 전달을 해주었습니다”, 재판장의 “증인이 기억나는 것만 대답을 하십시오. 포도마을 (상세동·호수 생략)의 안방과 현관 잠금장치를 교체해 준 사실이 있나요”라는 질문에 “예, 있습니다”, 재판장의 “다시 한번 묻겠습니다. 포도마을 (상세동·호수 생략)의 잠금장치를 교체한 기억이 나는가요”라는 질문에 “최근에 들은 것이 아닙니다. 그때 종업원으로부터 들은 것이 기억이 납니다”, 검사의 “그 당시에 종업원으로부터 들었던 말이 기억이 나는가요”라는 질문에 “예, 기억납니다”, “그때 종업원이 피고인으로부터 부탁을 받았다고 했다는 말이 기억이 난다는 것인가요”라는 질문에 “예, 그렇습니다”라고 자신이 경험하지도 아니하고 알지도 못하는 사실을 마치 경험하거나 알고 있는 것처럼 기억에 반한 허위의 공술을 함으로써 위증을 교사하고, (3) 사실은 공소외 3에 대한 피고인신문사항을 작성할 때 공소외 3에게 “경찰에서 자백을 해놓고 이제 와서 왜 아니라고 하느냐. 나한테까지 거짓말하지 말고 솔직히 한번 이야기해보라”는 말을 한 사실도 없고, 공소외 3으로부터 “중개수수료를 초과로 받은 사실이 없다. 경찰에서 경찰관이 호통을 치고 야단법석을 하니까 당황되고 겁이 나서 할 수 없이 허위자백을 한 것이다”라는 말을 들은 사실도 없음에도, 2002. 7. 15. 위 법정에서 재판장 공소외 9가 병합심리중인 피고인 1 변호사에 대한 위증교사 등 사건의 증인으로 출석하여 선서한 후 “내가 공소외 3에게 경찰에서 다 자백해 놓고 이제 와서 왜 아니라고 하느냐 라고 물어보았더니 공소외 3이 처음당한 일이라 당황도 되었고 경찰관이 호통을 쳐서 겁이 난 나머지 그랬다”, “내가 공소외 3에게 나한테까지 거짓말하지 말고 솔직히 말해보라고 다그쳤으나 공소외 3은 초과수수료를 받은 것은 결코 아니다 라고 펄쩍 뛰면서 25만 원을 받은 것은 사실이나 중개수수료와 안방잠금장치 교체비용을 합해서 받은 것이에요 라고 말하면서 사무장님 나는 공인중개사 자격이 취소되면 먹고 살 수도 없으니 열심히 해 달라는 취지로 부탁을 하였다”라고 기억에 반하여 허위의 공술을 하여 위증하였다.

B. The defendant 2's defense counsel

(1) As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the obstruction of performance of official duties

As to this part of the facts charged, Defendant 2 did not interfere with the execution of official duties, and did not assault Nonindicted 1 prosecutor or Nonindicted 4’s order in the process of prompt and safe escape from the room inside the prosecutor’s room (the office room of prosecutor’s office) with Defendant 1 as soon as possible, and did not assault Nonindicted 1 prosecutor or Nonindicted 4 order. ② At that time, Defendant 2 attempted to prohibit Defendant 2’s eviction who was present by the prosecutor as a witness and to arrest him. Thus, Defendant 2’s act did not constitute a crime of interference with the performance of official duties, even if Defendant 2 committed assault in the process of resisting the emergency arrest because it constitutes an illegal arrest that does not meet the grounds and requirements for emergency arrest, and thus, Defendant 2’s act does not constitute a self-defense as an act to escape from the present

(2) As to the perjury and perjury

As to each of the facts charged, Defendant 2 only prepared the examination of Nonindicted 2 by allowing Nonindicted 3 to take Nonindicted 2 into the attorney-at-law office, and did not let Nonindicted 2 make a false statement, and Defendant 2 also claimed that the testimony made by Defendant 2 is not false.

C. Judgment of the court below

(1) As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the obstruction of performance of official duties

First of all, it is examined whether Defendant 2 was absent from the above inspection room as in the above facts charged, was tightly pushed away with the body of the prosecutor, and assaulted with the left hand by having the arms of the chief of the prosecution fraternity one time.

In line with this evidence, there are Nonindicted 5’s prosecutor’s statement and Nonindicted 4’s statement and Nonindicted 1’s statement in the prosecutor’s office and the court. Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 4’s statement are insufficient or lack of consistency, and Nonindicted 5’s statement was somewhat vague to deem that the Defendants (Defendant 2 and Defendant 1) sealed Nonindicted 1’s inspection in this court as follows; Nonindicted 4 made a statement to the effect that he was not aware of how he was sealed by the prosecutor’s office; and, at the time of the structure of the above prosecutor’s office and its location, it was doubtful about the accuracy of the contents of the statement; Nonindicted 2’s statement was insufficient to recognize that he was not sealed by the prosecutor’s body and the witness’s body in light of whether he was sealed by Defendant 1 and his body (the body of Nonindicted 1’s body).

Rather, according to the statement of the witness in this court, Nonindicted 5, who had been examined as a suspect at the time of the inspection room, is not aware of whether Defendant 2 was sealed, and Defendant 2, who was unsatisfying out of the inner door of the inspection room, was unsatisfyed by Defendant 2, and was unsatisfying out of the inspection room, for the following reasons: “I cannot see that the prosecutor was unsatfying out of the inspection room,” and “I cannot see that the prosecutor was unsatfying out of the inspection room,” and “I cannot see that the prosecutor was unsatfying out of the inspection room,” and “I cannot see that the prosecutor was unsatfying out of the inspection room,” and “I cannot see that the prosecutor was unsatfying out of the Defendant 2.”

In full view of these statements of the witness, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 exercised physical tangible power by leaving the room of the prosecutor's office and the tide, etc., and considering the situation at that time, the defendant was present at the prosecutor's office with knowledge that only the witness was investigated, and was investigated as a suspect, the defendant was requested to help the defendant 1, who is his employer and the non-party third party, while refusing a voluntary investigation as a suspect, and the defendant 1 was absent from the room of the prosecutor's office, and thus, he cannot be recognized as a public collusion or a joint relationship with the defendant 1.

Therefore, without considering the need to determine other arguments by Defendant 2, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

(2) As to the perjury and perjury

On the other hand, there are the statements made by Nonindicted 3 at the 16th trial date and the prosecutor's office investigation process (Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office No. 3766 case in 2003) as evidence corresponding to each of the above facts charged, and each statement made by Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2 during the trial process of the case (a copy of each protocol of examination of witness against Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2, which are bound to the records of the trial in this case).

However, each statement made by Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2 was insufficient for consistency in comparison with each statement made by Nonindicted 3 at the prosecutor’s office (each protocol of examination of Nonindicted 2, 2003 and each protocol of statement compiled on the page 37666 of the investigation records, which were bound on the page 3-96), and the following circumstances revealed in the evidence duly examined and adopted by this court. In other words, the first time of Defendant 2 was when preparing the defendant’s cross-examination before the date of trial of the instant case (case No. 3) violating the Real Estate Brokerage Act (case No. 1) against Nonindicted 3 was set. The second time was denied the fact that Nonindicted 2’s name was written on the envelope of the trial records of Defendant 1 attorney and that Nonindicted 3 was not aware of the fact that Nonindicted 2 was not guilty of the fact that Nonindicted 3’s testimony was made on the part of Nonindicted 2, 3, and that Nonindicted 2 was not aware of the fact that Nonindicted 3’s testimony was made on the part of Nonindicted 3’s testimony.

Therefore, each of the above charges constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

(3) Therefore, Defendant 2 was acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

D. The judgment of this Court

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, the court below did not present any reasonable ground for finding that Defendant 2 had been aware of the fact that he had already been aware of the receipt as a fake. The defendant 2 stated that "at the time of making an examination of the witness with respect to Nonindicted Party 2, the office chief (defendant 2) was aware of the falsity of the receipt." Nonindicted Party 2 is classified as Nonindicted Party 3 as an offender who instigated him to give a perjury at the beginning of the prosecutor's statement at the prosecutor's office, and the defendant 2 made a statement at the prosecutor's office and asked him of the contents of the examination, and asked him of the contents of the examination and asked him. In the process of testimony in the court, the court below rejected the defendant 2's statement and the prosecutor's allegation that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal reasoning as to the facts of this case, such as the defendant 4 and the prosecutor's statement in this case."

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals filed by Defendant 1 and the prosecutor are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Su-cheon (Presiding Judge)