The defendant shall be innocent.

1. 이 사건 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2017. 6. 29. 22:38 경 여수시 C에 있는 ‘D’ 식당 앞에서 남자가 여자를 폭행하고 있다는 112 신고를 받고 출동한 여수 경찰서 소속 경위 E(46 세 )으로부터 폭행 여부 및 인적 사항에 관한 질문을 받자 “ 난 몰라, 이 짭새야”, “ 나는 이름을 모르고 기억도 나지 않는다, 이 짭새야 ”라고 욕설을 하고, 경찰관들 로부터 모욕죄로 처벌 받을 수 있음을 고지 받자 이에 화가 나서 갑자기 주먹으로 위 E의 얼굴을 1회 때리고 멱살을 잡고 밀쳐 바닥에 넘어뜨리는 등 폭행하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the prevention and investigation of crimes.

2. Determination

1. The defense counsel asserts that the defendant's defense counsel did not have any fact of drinking E, and that it constitutes a justifiable act because he resisted to illegal forced acts.

2. Determination

A. The first sentence of Article 12(5) of the Constitution does not mean that anyone is arrested or detained without being informed of the grounds for arrest or detention and the right to receive assistance of counsel.

Article 72 of the Criminal Procedure Act declares the principle of “the defendant shall not be detained unless he/she gives the defendant an opportunity to defend himself/herself by stating the summary of the crime, the grounds for detention, and the appointment of a defense counsel.”

Article 213-2 of the same Act provides that “The provision applies mutatis mutandis to cases where a prosecutor or a judicial police officer arrests a current criminal or takes custody of the current criminal under the arrest of the general public. Therefore, in cases where a judicial police officer arrests a defendant as a current criminal, it is apparent that the defendant must be given an opportunity to inform and defend him/her of the summary of the crime, the reason for the arrest, and the fact that he/she can appoint a defense counsel, and such notification should be given prior to entering the exercise of the power for the arrest.