(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.3.28.선고 2012노5294 판결

The prosecutor asserts that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or finding the defendant not guilty of obstruction of the performance of official duties among the facts charged against the defendant, although the defendant refused to produce identification cards at the time of the arrest of the flagrant offender and met the requirements for the arrest of the flagrant offender, and the presentation of identification cards after the arrest does not affect the requirements for the existing arrest of the criminal defendant.

2. Determination

Any person may arrest a flagrant offender without a warrant (Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act), but a maximum fine not exceeding 50,000 won, detention, or a minor fine may be arrested only when the domicile of the offender is uncertain (Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Act). As such, if a police officer arrests a person who committed a crime in violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act without a special circumstance (such as where it is difficult to confirm his/her residence due to a flagrant offender’s also), and if he/she arrests such person as a flagrant offender without confirming whether his/her domicile is evident, it cannot be deemed a legitimate performance of official duties.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are as follows: ① around 30 on August 13, 201, the Defendant: (a) around 30, the police officer was under the influence of alcohol in the Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, 755, and (b) the police officer was demanded to present his identification card to the Defendant; (c) the Defendant was informed that the police officer was arrested as an offender in the crime of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, in which the Defendant was unknown; (d) the Defendant was a citizen of the police officer’s driver’s license entering the police station inside the police station; (5) the police officer was arrested in the police station and did not have his/her driver’s license to visit the police station without checking the Defendant’s license on the scene; and (5) The police officer’s police officer did not arrest the Defendant and forced him/her to visit the police station without checking his/her driver’s license; and (3) the police officer’s license to arrest him/her to the police station.

On the other hand, the prosecutor asserts that the defendant's refusal to present his/her identification card, i.e., when the police officer's refusal to arrest the suspect in the act of committing the crime, and that arrest was completed at the third stage. Thus, even if the defendant presented his/her identification card at the fourth stage, this does not affect the legality of arrest in the act of committing the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the Republic of Korea. However, the interpretation of the Criminal Act and the Criminal Procedure Act states that "the arrest column refers to "B" taking the suspect into custody at a certain place, such as the investigative agency, etc. for a relatively short period against his/her will, and the arrest or completion of the act of carrying the defendant in a certain place, such as patrol or police station, was made at the fifth stage, i.e., when the defendant presented his/her identification card, the prosecutor's argument should be accepted, and then it should have been determined whether he/she was missing at least through it, and whether he/she was at the above stage.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to the obstruction of the performance of official duties among the charges of this case, was not erroneous in the misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor's assertion is not correct.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.