A. Whether a person may be punished as a crime of assault or cruel act by a special public official as prescribed in Article 125 of the Criminal Act in the event a general correctional officer commits an assault or cruel act against the number of votes in prison (negative)

(b) Whether or not "other persons" among the participants stipulated in Article 125 of the Criminal Act is included in the number of articles;

(a) The term "person who performs other duties concerning the restraint of human beings" as stipulated in Article 125 of the Criminal Act means the person who performs the duties of judicial police officers as defined in the Act on the Persons Performing the Duties of Judicial Police Officers and the Scope of their Duties, and the term "person who assists in such duties" means the person who is in the position of assistant in the course of performing such duties as the court, the staff of the public prosecutor's office, or the judicial police officer, and general prison officers mean the person who performs the duties of judicial police officers upon the recommendation of the head of the prison under Article 5 (1) of the above Act and the appointment of the public prosecutor of the competent district public prosecutor's office under Article 5 (1) of the above Act, and further, unless the person conducts the duties of examination or assistance to the crimes committed in the prison under subparagraph 1 of Article 6 of the above Act, they cannot be regarded as falling under any category of special public officials

(b) The term "other persons" in Article 125 of the Criminal Act refers to persons who are subject to investigation in a trial or examination, such as defendants, witnesses, reference witnesses, etc., and the number of cases in prison is not included as long as the sentence has become final and conclusive and is not the suspect or reference witness of other crimes in prison.

(a)Article 125, (a) of the Criminal Code; Article 5 and Article 6 of the Act on Persons Performing the Duties of Judicial Police Officers and the Scope of their Duties;

Applicant

The petition for adjudication of this case is dismissed.

On June 29, 192, the prosecutor of the first district public prosecutor's office, who made a decision not to prosecute each prosecutor (not guilty) on June 29, 1992, shall have jurisdiction over the case of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act against the suspect 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the above public prosecutor's office in 192.

The gist of the motion for the ruling of this case is that the above applicant is a person who works for the first-class security department, the suspect 1, 2, and 2. The suspect 3 and 4 were working for the first-class prison, and the suspect 6 was working for the first-class prison from October 27, 190 to May 9, 192. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months for the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act at the Incheon District Court's 191 and moved the suspect 1 to 12.27. The suspect 1, 2, and 2, together with the above suspect 1 and the suspect 2, were sent to the defendant's office, and the suspect 1 and 3, the suspect 1 and 2 were sent to the defendant's office, and the suspect 1 and 1, 2, the suspect were sent to the defendant's office and the defendant 1 and 2, 2, respectively, on the ground that they were sent to the defendant's office.

Therefore, with regard to the crime of violence and cruel act by a special public official as provided in Article 125 of the Criminal Act, the term "person who performs or assists in the duties of judicial police officers" means the person who performs the duties of judicial police officers and who performs the duties of judicial police officers as provided in the Act on the Persons Performing the Duties of Judicial Police Officials and the Scope of their Duties, and the term "person who assists in such duties" means the person who is in the position of assistant such as court, prosecutor's staff or judicial police officer. General prison officers mean the person who is in the position of assistant such as the court, prosecutor's office or deputy chief of the competent district public prosecutor's office as provided in subparagraph 1 of Article 5 of the above Act and the appointment of the chief public prosecutor of the competent district public prosecutor's office as provided in subparagraph 1 of Article 6 of the above Act, and further, an "person who performs the duties of judicial police officers or assistant chief of the competent public official as provided in Article 125 of the Criminal Act" can not be seen as belonging to any special category of a witness or assistant.

Ultimately, the facts of the applicant's accusation (the prosecutor dealt with the facts of the applicant's complaint as a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, but the applicant clearly claims the facts of the complaint as the suspicion of the suspect in the complaint) do not constitute the crime of assault and cruel act by a special public official under Article 125 of the Criminal Act, and it is apparent in the text of the above law that it is not an offense subject to an application for a ruling under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the application for a ruling of this case is groundless without any need to determine the truth of the contents of the complaint.

Therefore, under Article 262 (1) 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the applicant's application of this case is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)