[1] The case holding that even if a funeral commissioner commits an act that undermines the legal interest and protection of the law, such as the people's emotional sentiment and peace in the public in the funeral ceremony for former president as defined by the Act on the Funeral and National Funeral, he may be the subject of the crime of interference with funeral ceremony

[2] The case holding that in a case where the defendant saw the former president who was designated as a citizen's head of the national funeral in the process of the funeral ceremony, and caused a disturbance to the former president who was in the process of making it unconstitutional, "the crime of death" and "constition to a great sound," this constitutes an "constition to a funeral ceremony"

[3] The case holding that even if the defendant was a member of the National Assembly and a funeral, the defendant's act of obstructing consciousness by making a large representation in funeral ceremony for the former president as a member of the National Assembly cannot be deemed as a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms

[1] The case holding that since the funeral ceremony for a former President, who is determined as "the national funeral," according to the requirements and procedures under the Act on the National Funeral and National Funeral, is not only the bereaved family members and deceased persons, but also the citizen's body, the legal interest of which is protected, shall be the evaluation of the trend of the whole people who lose their body in a peace and well-being state without expression of conflict or the peace of the public, if the funeral ceremony was committed an act hindering this, it may be the subject of interference with funeral ceremony even if the funeral commissioner was a member

[2] In a case where the defendant, who was the most important food among the funeral ceremony for the former president who was designated as the national funeral, was fluently in the presence of the diplomatic team in Korea, the master and three parts of the articles, and the funeral members in the presence of the funeral hall in Korea, and caused a disturbance by continuing to make the same attempt while the incumbent president who was to make the Constitution was able to make a serious sound and fluently sound, the case holding that it is an act that makes it difficult for the defendant to conduct a peaceful funeral ceremony and constitutes an act of interference with funeral.

[3] The case holding that even if the defendant was a member of the National Assembly and a funeral, the defendant's act of obstructing the consciousness of deceased people by marking a claim against deceased people's death at funeral ceremony for former Presidents as a member of the National Assembly, shall not be deemed as a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms

[1] Articles 158, 2, and 3 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 158 of the Criminal Code / [3] Articles 20 and 158 of the Criminal Code

[3] Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3000 Decided September 26, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 2132) Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4151 Decided April 27, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 975) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do699 Decided October 23, 2008

Defendant

Kim In-su

Law Firm Geon et al.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

피고인은, 2009. 5. 29. 12:00경 서울 종로구 세종로 1-1에 있는 경복궁 앞뜰에서 개최된 고 노무현 전 대통령의 국민장 영결식장에서, 식장에 설치된 헌화대를 기준으로 오른쪽 방향 약 20m 떨어져 있는 지점의 가장 앞좌석에 앉아 있던 중 이명박 대통령 부부가 헌화하러 나가는 순간 좌석에서 갑자기 일어나 동그랗게 말은 행사 안내장을 앞으로 치켜든 채 빠르게 헌화대 방향으로 걸어가면서 “사죄하라, 어디서 분향을 해”라고 크게 소리를 질렀다.

Since then, the Defendant interfered with the smooth progress of the constitutional procedure by interfering with the smooth execution of the unconstitutional process, such as barring him from entering the security guards who were in his/her own ability in the future and trying to continue sound by leading him/her to the right edge of the funeral hall, thereby hindering the funeral ceremony of the former President of the Republic of Korea, administered by the National Funeral Committee.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 1 and 2

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Nonindicted 1’s letter of postal statement (including the national funeral execution plan attached thereto);

1. Investigation reports (reports, such as the verification of the contents of the relevant motion pictures and motion pictures, viewing and attaching CDs, attaching news materials to the Ministry of Public Administration and Security related to the President of the Republic of Korea before the port of labor, attaching news materials to news reports by the Ministry of Public Administration and Security related to the President of the Republic of Korea, reporting on the permanent image, and attaching newspapers related to the interview of

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 158 (Selection of Punishment by Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Claims by the defendant and defense counsel;

Although the defendant and his defense counsel acknowledged the fact that he committed an act as stated in the facts charged at the time and place stated in the facts charged, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's act is not illegal since he actually resides in a permanent resident and was a member of the funeral hall, he cannot be the subject of interference with funeral ceremony, and that he cannot be the subject of interference with funeral ceremony because he did not induce other participants in the funeral hall to commit such act, and the defendant did not have intention to interfere with funeral ceremony, and the defendant's act did not interfere with funeral ceremony, and therefore, it does not constitute a interference with funeral ceremony, and even if not, the defendant's act is an act that does not violate the social rules as an indication of deceased person's death.

2. Determination

A. Persons who interfere with the character of funeral ceremony and funeral ceremony of this case

According to the evidence of each judgment, the funeral ceremony for the former President of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant funeral ceremony”) is a “national funeral” as prescribed by the requirements and procedures prescribed by the Act on the Funeral and National Funeral (Article 2, Article 3 of the said Act), and the “National Funeral Committee” (Article 1,400 persons) representing the people under the said Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof may be recognized as having been in charge of the funeral.

Therefore, the funeral ceremony of this case is not only the bereaved family members and deceased persons, but also the body of the people. regardless of whether or not the benefit and protection of the law is supported by the deceased, the funeral ceremony of this case is a national funeral for the former president, who is likely to be satisfed in a peaceful and comfortable state without expression of conflict, and is an evaluation of the trend of the whole deceased people or peace in the public.

Therefore, in a case where the above acts interfered with the public sentiment and peace in the public, even if a funeral commissioner, he can be the subject of the crime of interference with funeral ceremony. Thus, this part of the other defendant and defense counsel's assertion is without merit.

(b) Acts of interfering with funeral rites and the origin of results thereof;

"Obstruction" in the crime of interference with funeral ceremony is an act that makes it difficult to proceed normally by impeding the peaceful execution of funeral ceremony, and it is an abstract dangerous crime, and thus, it is impossible to say that there is such interference and the occurrence of interference, such as the interruption of consciousness, is not necessary.

Comprehensively taking account of all the evidence in the holding, the funeral of this case was the most important food among the funeral of this case, and the fact that the defendant continued to make an identical attempt while the defendant was able to see, in the process of making his mind in the future, making a great sound in the funeral room, and taking the funeral commissioner's participation in the diplomatic team in Korea, the articles of the Republic of Korea, the three main factors, and the funeral commissioner, and the fact that the ceremony was partially delayed and the disturbance occurred. Accordingly, this constitutes an act that makes it difficult to conduct the funeral ceremony in a peaceful manner, and thus constitutes an act of interference with the funeral ceremony, and thus, this part of the claim by the defendant and the defense counsel is rejected on a different premise.

(c) Intentions to obstruct funeral rites;

The intention of interfering with funeral rites is sufficient with the perception and intention that his act may interfere with funeral rites due to his act, and it is sufficient to interfere with not only with the entire funeral rites, but also with the perception and intention of interfering with some procedures among individual food that constitutes funeral rites or their rites.

Comprehensively taking account of each evidence in the judgment, the defendant intended to leave the history of his intention to indicate his deceased person's resistance at the time of the instant case, and if he was not subject to restraint by the security guards, he may be recognized that he continued such action. In addition, the judgment of the instant case is an event in which the diplomatic team in Korea, the articles of the instant case, and the three main factors were present. The defendant knew that even if there is a small-scale situation in the permanent judgment of the instant case due to his experience, it may seriously interfere with the overall progress of the event due to the security problems, and thus, it can be sufficiently confirmed that the defendant had the awareness and intent to interfere with the funeral ceremony. Therefore, this part of the allegation is without merit.

(d) Defendant's responsibility for acts such as participants;

The summary of this part of the facts charged argues that the defendant's act requires some participants to take sound, such as "Saman Mar, 1, 200," "samanma", "samanma", and "saved", and that "I am a disturbance for about 2 minutes, such as requiring participants to take a part in a hand to take part in a meeting to the effect that "I am am save for the sound common sense," and the prosecutor asserts that the above behavior of the participants was interfered with a peaceful progress due to the defendant's act."

According to each evidence of the court below, it is recognized that the defendant made several arguments to the effect that "the defendant committed a noise or attempted to commit a noise," etc. "the leader of a building site Mar, 1, 2009", "the leader of a building site", "the leader of a building site", and "the leader of a building site", "the leader of a building site", "the leader of a building site", "the leader of a building site", "the leader of a building site", "the leader of a building site", and "the

However, even if the defendant's act led to the participant's behavior, it cannot be evaluated as a result of the defendant's act committed by a third party with the character and intent of each party, and as long as it is not recognized as a relation of conspiracy or aiding and abetting, the defendant cannot be held liable for criminal liability against the third party's act, and even according to each evidence of the judgment, it is insufficient to recognize a conspiracy or aiding and abetting relation between the defendant and the participant. The defendant and the defense counsel's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where there is no proof of a crime, or in a case where it is found guilty of the facts charged with a single crime, it shall not be sentenced

E. Whether the act constitutes a justifiable act that does not contravene social norms

To recognize any act as a legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; reasonableness of the second means or method; balance between the protected legal interests and the infringed legal interests; fourth urgency; fifth, there are no other means or method except the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003).

In full view of the following facts: (a) the motive and means of the defendant's act in this case; (b) the character and protected legal interest of the funeral ceremony in this case; and (c) the defendant's purpose is deemed to have been other means suitable for his status and status; and (d) the defendant's act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules; and

3. Conclusion

Therefore, according to each evidence of the judgment, the remaining charges except the charges stated in Section 2. D. are found guilty.

The purpose of this case’s funeral ceremony, as a national funeral, is the evaluation of the mother of all citizens and the public peace; the defendant was a member of the National Assembly who is a national representative and was a public member of the National Assembly; the motive and method of the defendant; the defendant’s motive and method of such act; and the defendant’s act is not liable for criminal liability against the defendant; however, his act was actually promoted by the defendant’s act; however, the defendant’s act was committed by the defendant; however, the punishment of this case’s funeral ceremony is imposed in consideration of all the following factors: the relation between the defendant and the deceased, the reason why the person died, and the suffering of the defendant due to such act; and

Judges Lee Dong-chul