The case holding that the charge of false accusation, etc. cannot be acknowledged against the defendant who has filed a criminal charge of injury against the criminal defendant who has filed a criminal charge of refusing voluntary movement without a lawful detention warrant and attempted to take a drinking test after driving the criminal suspect to a police station.

The case finding the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant and the police officer who refused to take a drinking test after driving a suspect who refused to take a lawful arrest warrant without obtaining a lawful arrest warrant and attempted to take a drinking test, and who accused the defendant and the police officer who franchising the franchis are not able to believe that a drinking test conducted after illegal arrest is conducted, and even if the defendant damaged a police station patrol vehicle to avoid an illegal arrest, this constitutes a justifiable act, and even if the defendant filed a complaint against the police officer on the ground that he was injured by the police officer during such illegal behavior continued, the contents of the complaint do not constitute a false act, or that at least the defendant cannot be said to constitute a crime of false accusation because it is merely an exaggeration of the circumstances with the police officer.

Article 156 of the Criminal Act, Articles 200-3 and 201 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Attorney Park In-bok

Jeonju District Court Decision 97No1040 delivered on December 20, 1997

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

164 days from the number of detention days before this judgment is rendered shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, damage to public goods, and each accusation shall be acquitted.

Criminal facts

Defendant,

1. On March 28, 1997, at the right edge of the Sambu Center located in Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Young-si, the driver of the vehicle left to park (vehicle number omitted) cars owned by the defendant in the Dong-dong (vehicle number omitted) while under the influence of alcohol without blood alcohol concentration. When a person engaged in driving the vehicle gets back to the Dong-dong, a thorough examination of whether there are other vehicles or people on the back side of the vehicle shall be conducted, and due to the negligence attributable to the defendant's duty of care to check closely whether there is another vehicle or person on the back side of the vehicle, before the designation of the victim (vehicle number omitted) car owned by the defendant on the back side of the above vehicle (vehicle number omitted) car 761,000 won under the above vehicle repair expense.

2. At the above time and place, the victim 1, the above restaurant owner of the said accident, who had observed the said accident, requested the defendant to return his driver’s license and the car inspection certificate to the person in custody, but the victim, on the ground that the victim refused it, interfered with the business of the above restaurant by using force, such as putting the victim’s breath, booming the breath, and taking a bath.

Summary of Evidence

Each fact in the judgment

1. Statements corresponding thereto in part by the defendant in this court;

1. Each statement corresponding thereto in this Court by the witness Han-dong, the victim 1, and the non-indicted 2

1. Each protocol of examination of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor, which corresponds to the same;

1. Each statement made by the prosecutor with respect to the Korea-Japan, the victim 1, and the non-indicted 2, which correspond to this;

In full view of the above, there is evidence that can be recognized.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Subparagraph 1 of Article 107-2, Article 41(1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of a drinking run on the market), Article 108 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of causing damage to property at the market), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interfering with the business at the market)

2. Selection of punishment;

Each imprisonment with prison labor shall be imposed on the violation of the Road Traffic Act and the crime of interference with business concerning the drunk driving and the crime of the violation of the Road Traffic Act concerning the damage of the negligence in the judgment.

3. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2 and (2), and 50 (Aggravation of punishment and punishment as imprisonment with prison labor, limited to punishment prescribed in the holding of the most severe crime of interference with business) of the Criminal Act

4. Calculation of the number of days under detention before sentencing; and

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

5. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

The acquittal portion

1. Facts charged;

We examine the following points of the facts charged in the instant case. In other words, the Defendant:

A. On March 28, 1997, in order to park a motor vehicle (motor vehicle number omitted) owned by the Defendant in the Dong, while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.18% at the front parking lot of Sambu Center located in Jung-dong, Jung-gu, Seo-dong, Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul, in a manner of alcohol concentration of 0.25%;

B. On the same day: 21:30 of the same day, a police officer, 2:3, etc. in charge of the service of the police station at regular police station at regular police station at regular police stations at regular police stations as indicated in the judgment of conviction No. 1, who committed assault to the above victim 3, including: (a) 2:3 times through 3: the back of the patrol vehicle at the patrol vehicle at the patrol vehicle at regular police station; (b) 3: (c) one time through the Defendant’s misleads the front part of the patrol vehicle at regular police station; and (d) two times on the left side of the above victim 2; and (c) two weeks within two weeks after the above victim 2 needs the above 3; and (d) damage the public goods equivalent to KRW 10,000 for the repair expenses of the patrol vehicle at regular police stations at regular police stations; and (e) damage the public goods equivalent to the above victim 2.

다. 위 피해자 2 외 2명에게 위 나.항과 같이 폭력을 행사할 때 위 경찰관들이 이를 제지한 사실이 있을 뿐이고, 위 경찰서 사고처리반 근무 경장 공소외 1 외 1명으로부터 조사에 응하라는 요청만 받았을 뿐 위 경찰관들로부터 폭행을 당한 사실이 전혀 없음에도 피고인은 위 유죄 부분 판시 제1사실과 같은 교통사고를 야기하여 공무원인 피고인의 신분에 불이익이 있을 것을 우려하여 이를 모면하기 위하여 위 경찰관들로 하여금 징계처분이나 형사처벌을 받게 할 목적으로 1997. 4. 1. 정읍시 덕천 초등학교 자신의 숙소에서 "1996. 3. 28. 20:20경부터 다음 날 01:00경까지 사이에 정읍경찰서 역전파출소 순찰차량과 같은 경찰서 사고 처리반 사무실 등에서 위 파출소 근무 순경 3명과 위 경찰서 소속 경장 공소외 1로부터 팔을 뒤로 꺽이고 주먹과 무릎으로 얼굴, 목, 가슴, 허벅지 부분을 무수히 구타 당하여 요치 2주간의 '찰과상 및 경추부염좌' 등의 상해를 입었으니 위 경찰관들을 엄중 처벌해달라."라는 허위 내용의 고소장을 작성하여 같은 달 2. 11:00경 전북지방경찰청 감사실에 상해진단서와 함께 접수하여 위 공소외 1 등을 무고하였다는 것이다.

2. Basic facts acknowledged as a member;

On March 28, 1997, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant: around 21:25 on March 28, 1997, 21: (a) driven a jun-dong (vehicle number omitted) modeled the front North Korean (vehicle number omitted) car owned by the Defendant; (b) destroyed the car; (c) flabed the 1st of the victim other than the judgment holding that the jun-dong is a restaurant owner; and (d) flab, flabed the flab; and (c) flabed the 1st of the above victim’s 1’s wife; and (d) 21:30 on the same day, Non-Party 2 reported the fact to the said jun-dong Police box, and flabed the above 112 patrol box to the above 20th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the cafeteria; (d) determined that Defendant’s flaflaf.

On the other hand, at around 23:00 on the same day, when the above 23th police station was appointed as the owner of the above car, the above 3th police station did not request the above 3th police station to leave the above 3th police station, and the defendant did not leave the above 3th police station, and called the above 3th police station by telephone inside the above 3th police station. The above 3th police station, who was on duty within the above 3th police station, did not ask the defendant to " how she was in the situation of the front 3th police station's office" and did not deal with the above 3th police station's police station's order to stop the above 3th police station's arrest and to check the above 3th police station's order to leave the above 3th police station's office, and it was hard to find out the situation that the above 2nd police station's order to stop the above 3th police station's duty and let the defendant go to the above 3th police station's order to check.

In addition, as seen above, the Defendant, who was going through a traffic accident investigation office of the Jung-Eup Police Station, was trying to take a drinking test, refused to take a drinking test by gathering phone calls at the location, making verbal abuse, and refusing to take a drinking test, and accordingly, the victim 2, 3, and Nonindicted 4, etc., who were the victim 2, 4 and the victim 2, 3, and 4, also insulting remarks to the Defendant, b9 days following the 29th 01:125% of the blood alcohol concentration by taking a drinking test at around 02:00 on the same day. At that time, the Defendant returned to the Defendant at around 02:00 on the same day. At that time, the Defendant suffered injuries, such as scinitis, scinitis, scoppy, poppy, and scoping, etc., which require medical treatment for 14 days during the process of punishing with the above police officers.

After that, on April 1, 1997, three days have passed since the date of the above case, the police officer requested the direction of a new illness against the defendant due to charges such as drinking driving, damage to property, obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. On the same day, the prosecutor of the Dong-dong District Prosecutors' Office in the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Gu-Eup District Public Prosecutor") issued a detention warrant and detained the defendant after obtaining the detention warrant on April 2, 199, because it is extremely poor that the police officer who requested drinking is spiting, spiting, spiting, and spiting into the police station.

(Ma)

Each statement of each statement of the defendant, each statement of the prosecutor's detention warrant, each statement of the defendant, victim 2, victim 3, victim 3, victim 3, victim 3, victim 3, and victim 3, and victim 2, victim 3, pregnant and leap (in particular, page 113 of the investigation record), each report of the investigation of the traffic accident case (in particular, page 48 of the investigation record), the report of the results of the investigation of the traffic accident case (in particular, page 48 of the investigation record), each statement of the written complaint, each statement of the written diagnosis of the defendant, the statement of the written diagnosis of the defendant, the video of the defendant's injured part of the document submitted by the defense counsel, the statement of the confirmation document prepared by the victim 1 (Evidence 2-6 of the counsel to submit).

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the premise

As above, the police officer's act of having the defendant returned home with the knowledge of the facts causing the traffic accident of this case, and without meeting the requirements for emergency arrest or arrest of flagrant offender at the night room at Geumcheon-cheon Elementary School where the defendant is living, and without obtaining an arrest warrant or arrest warrant from the court, was an illegal arrest, not a justifiable execution of official duties. The police officer's act of having the defendant's refusal of voluntary operation to the police station, but was an illegal act of arrest, not a legitimate execution of official duties. If it is determined that there was an agreement on drinking driving with the defendant, if the police officer decided that the defendant had a consultation on drinking driving, the police officer did not have to take a drinking measure when the defendant was called to the Samcheon Elementary School's boarding room with the knowledge of the damage to the vehicle designated by the victim, regardless of the alcohol measure or the defendant's refusal to take a drinking test, and if the defendant refused it, the police officer did not have to take a drinking measure so that he would be punished as a refusal of drinking, and even if the arrest warrant or arrest warrant was not issued.

In addition, the protocol of interrogation of the accused in preparation of administrative affairs by judicial police officers does not admit the contents of the protocol, and all the written statement of appointment or written statement of written statement of written appointment or written statement of written indictment of regular Eup/Myeon company is admissible as evidence for finding the accused guilty of each of the above charges since there is no evidence to prove the authenticity thereof.

B. Judgment on the defendant's taking a drinking test

As seen above, 0.125% of the drinking water level measured after illegally arresting the Defendant at the police station at the Seocheon Elementary School, or 0.18% of the drinking water level indicated in the above facts charged, considering the distance between the accident time and the drinking measurement time, is the result of an illegal arrest and a drinking measurement conducted after the illegal arrest. In addition, it is difficult to believe that the police officers dispatched when the Defendant destroyed the vehicle that he appointed at the center at the first time did not take a drinking level against the Defendant, even if the police officers called up at the center at the center at the center at the first time did not contact with the public prosecutor's office and forced the Defendant to go without contact with the police station at the police station, and it is a numerical value measured after the Defendant was forced to go through the contact with the police station. Accordingly, the Defendant's report on drinking alcohol detection in the investigation record that the Defendant driven the vehicle under the influence of 0.18% as stated in the above facts charged, or the statements made by the investigative agency and the court at this point cannot be trust, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

C. Judgment on violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and damage to public goods

Of the facts charged of this case, the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and damage to public goods is recognized as follows: (a) the victim 2 and the victim 3 police officers returning to the boarding room at the Seocheon Elementary School at around 23:00 on March 28, 1997 illegally committed the act that resulted in the defendant's refusal and resistance as stated in the facts charged; (b) the above victim 2 and the victim 3 around 21:30 on the same day before Sambu Center at around 21:30 on the same day, do not act while the defendant 2 and the victim 3 got the defendant to go to the Jungbu Police Station at his own city. Furthermore, even if the defendant refused to proceed with the above police officers' acts illegally without the court's warrant of detention or warrant of arrest, and caused the above police officers to suffer minor conditions and damaged patrol cars, such act constitutes an act that does not be punished as a justifiable act. In light of the above, the victim's testimony or the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 cannot be found guilty by each of the above facts charged.

D. Judgment on the non-existence of an appeal

As acknowledged above, as long as the defendant illegally committed a traffic survey at the office of Jungcheon Elementary School, the police officer and the police officer were injured while refusing to take a drinking test, and the defendant accused the police officer at the same place for this reason, the situation where the defendant was requested by the above police station to take a drinking test, and even if the defendant filed a complaint against the police officer on the ground that he was injured by the police officer who continued to maintain such illegal state, the contents of the complaint are not false, or the defendant cannot be said to be a non-suspect of the above police officer because it is merely an exaggeration of the situation where the police officer and the defendant took a pact with the police officer, and therefore, it is difficult to find the above police officer guilty of all statements made by the investigation agency and the police officer such as the victim, victim 4, victim 2, victim 3, 3, 3, 3, 4 and the police officer, etc. and this court do not have any other evidence to acknowledge the charge under the latter part of Article 25 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

judges in writing;