beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is not false, but there is no fact that the defendant made a 112 phone call, and there was no violence or assault by the police officer dispatched.
In addition, since the defendant cannot be seen as a flagrant offender and there was no urgent circumstance that the defendant should immediately be arrested at the time, and the extent and degree of arrest was not legitimate, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties cannot be established even if the defendant resisted to escape illegal arrest.
The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
A thorough examination of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below that there was a violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act due to a false report on misunderstanding of facts or a misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant reported to the 112 comprehensive situation room in the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency, as stated in the facts charged, that "A fighting has occurred. A fighting has occurred. A fighting has occurred." However, it can be recognized that the police officer did not have any violence or disturbance immediately dispatched at the time of the report.
This constitutes a case where a person files a false report to a police official on an unclaimed crime or a disaster,” which is punished by Article 3(3)2 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and only a mere exaggeration of the fact that the Defendant asserts that such a report is true.
It can not be said that there was no perception that the defendant was false.
Whether the performance of official duties of a public official belonging to an abstract authority is legitimate shall be determined objectively and reasonably based on the specific circumstances at the time of the act, and shall not be determined by pure objective criteria ex post facto, and the legality of the arrest of a flagrant offender should be determined objectively based on the specific circumstances at the time of arrest.
Supreme Court Decision 91Do453 delivered on May 10, 1991