Defendant

Park Sung-sung

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly announced.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: "The defendant demanded the accompanying of Non-Indicted 1 to the head of the police station located in Ulsan-do, Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-do (hereinafter omitted) to find the residence of the defendant and deliver a writ of execution of punishment for the amount of fine due to the violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration in the past to the effect that Non-Indicted 1, the head of the police station located in Ulsan-do, Busan-do, Seoul-do, U.S., Seoul-do, to accompany the defendant. The defendant agreed to this request, and stated that the defendant would show the writ of execution of punishment from the defect of arrest to the first floor of the elevator, at the time of the arrest to show the letter of execution of punishment."

2. Facts

Comprehensively taking account of all the evidence including the testimony of the witness 1 and 2, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 1,00,000 won at the Busan District Court on August 13, 2008 as a violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. The above judgment became final and conclusive on March 12, 2009 due to dismissal of appeal and appeal, and the defendant did not pay the above fine in full. In the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office, the defendant was asked on June 10, 2009 (Evidence No. 48 of the Record), the judicial police officer 1 and 2 refused to issue the above warrant of execution on July 13, 2009, and the defendant did not request the above prosecutor to accompany the defendant to the District in the process of issuing the warrant of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of punishment of the defendant's residence, but it was still possible for the prosecutor to request the above defendant to accompany the above defendant to the District.

3. Relevant statutes and judgments

(a) Related Acts and subordinate statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

B. Determination

The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is established when the execution of official duties is legitimate, and the "legal execution of official duties" in this context refers to not only the abstract authority of a public official, but also the act must be within the authority of the public official, and also an important method as an act of official duties. Whether the execution of official duties of a public official belonging to abstract authority is legitimate should be determined objectively and reasonably based on the specific situation at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do506, May 22, 1992; 2007Do6088, Oct. 12, 2007).

According to the purport of the relevant laws and the above legal principles, in executing a warrant of execution, the judicial police officer shall present the warrant of execution issued by the prosecutor to the defendant in advance, and in case of urgency, it may present the warrant of execution immediately after the fact (in this case, the provision on the detention of the defendant is applied mutatis mutandis to the warrant of execution, and the provision on emergency arrest against the suspect cannot apply mutatis mutandis to the case of the warrant of execution, and since the prosecutor, who is the penal executive officer, can issue the warrant of execution at any time, it is not necessary to recognize arrest and detention for the execution of punishment prior to the issuance of the warrant of execution corresponding to the emergency arrest. Therefore, in order to arrest for the execution of punishment, the prosecutor must issue the warrant of execution prior to the arrest of the warrant of execution, at least to the arrest of the defendant for the purpose of the execution of punishment.)

However, in the case of this case, according to the facts acknowledged above, the dwelling of the defendant was fixed, and the judicial police officer Nonindicted 1 and 2 visited the dwelling of the defendant for the execution of the warrant of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of the execution of execution of execution of execution of execution of the execution of execution of execution of the execution of execution of the execution of execution of the execution of execution of the execution of execution of execution

Therefore, the defendant's act of this case was caused in the course of resistance to illegal official duties that the judicial police officer 1 and 2 did not present the warrant of execution, and thus, it does not constitute obstruction of performance of official duties.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged of this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime and thus, is to be acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Clinical Citizens