2015do 9601(a) interferes with the performance of special official duties

(b) interference with the performance of official duties;

1. A.

2. (a) B

3. (a) C.

4. (b) D.

5. (a) E.

6. (a) F

7. (a) G

8. A. H

9. (a) I

10.(a) J

11. (a) K

12. A. L.

13.(a) M

14. (a) N

15. A. 0

16.(a) P

17. A. Q.

18. (a) R

19. (a) S

20.(a) T:

21. U.S.

22. (a) V

23.(a)W;

Defendant 1

Attorney X-at-law in charge of legal affairs (Defendant A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K,

L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, T, U,V, and W

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015 360 decided June 8, 2015

June 19, 2017

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. As to Defendant D’s appeal

Defendant D did not submit a statement of reason for appeal within the period for submitting the statement of reason for appeal, and Defendant D did not state the reason for appeal in the petition of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the remaining defendants

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court: (a) on August 28, 2013, with respect to the execution of a warrant for verification of search and seizure, such as the office of Q National Assembly members, the National Intelligence Service employees attempted to enter the office to execute a warrant for verification of search and seizure; and (b) controlled access after entering the office constitutes legitimate performance of public duties; (c) the principle of presentation of the warrant per se and the defense counsel’s right to participate in the execution of public duties cannot be deemed to have been infringed upon; and (d) on September 4, 2013, the Defendant’s exercise of the type of force on the execution of public duties does not constitute a justifiable act; and (e) on September 4, 2013, the execution of the warrant for the arrest of suspects Q National Assembly members, the National Intelligence Service employees did not comply with the warrant for the execution of the warrant; and (e) the Defendant’s lawful execution of the warrant was not restricted by the defense counsel’s entrance to the pertinent public duties; and (e) the Defendant’s exercise of the warrant was not unlawful.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the relevant legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is legitimate.

At this time, there is no error in the judgment that affected the conclusion of the judgment by omitting judgment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and by violating the legal rules of logic and experience, beyond the limit of the free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the principle of legitimate procedure, warrant, caution, right to assistance of counsel, and legal principles on the act of a political party.

3. Conclusion

All appeals shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Jae-hyung