Defendant

Defendant

Compensation basis

Attorney Yu Han-do (Korean National Assembly)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Gohap743 Decided November 5, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

피고인은 회식을 마치고 술에 취한 상태에서 걸어서 귀가하던 중 우연히 반대편에서 오는 승용차 쪽을 바라보았다가 창문 밖을 주시하는 운전자(경사 공소외 2)와 눈이 마주친 후 불길한 예감이 들어 뒤돌아보니 피고인의 뒤를 바짝 뒤따르는 정체불명의 사람(경장 공소외 1(대법원판결의 공소외인))을 발견하게 되었고 그들로부터 ‘퍽치기(노상강도를 의미한다)’를 당할까봐 무서워 즉시 뛰기 시작하였는데, 공소외 1, 2는 피고인을 뒤따라 뛰거나 승용차를 운전하여 피고인의 진로를 가로막았고 피고인은 정차되어 있던 차 뒤쪽으로 피하려는 순간 미끄러져 넘어졌으며, 공소외 1, 2는 피고인에게 경찰공무원증을 제시하지 않은 채 피고인을 폭행하면서 승용차에 강제로 태우려고 하기에 피고인은 그들을 범죄자로 오인하여 저항하는 과정에서 공소외 1, 2에게 상해를 가하게 된 것으로서, 이러한 피고인의 행위는 정당방위 또는 정당행위에 해당하는바, 원심은 위와 같이 공소외 2, 1이 피고인에게 경찰공무원증을 제시한 사실이 없음에도 그들이 경찰공무원증을 제시하였다고 인정한 후 이 사건 공소사실을 유죄로 인정하였으니, 원심판결에는 사실을 오인하고 정당방위 또는 정당행위에 관한 법리를 오해하여 판결에 영향을 미친 위법이 있다.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case

피고인은 2009. 7. 17. 02:20경 대전 서구 월평동에 있는 누리네거리 앞길에서, 위 월평동 및 갈마동 일대의 부녀자들을 대상으로 한 강도강간 사건의 용의자를 검거하기 위해서 탐문 및 잠복근무를 하던 대전둔산경찰서 형사과 소속 경장인 피해자 공소외 1로부터 용의자와 인상착의가 비슷하다는 이유로 불심검문을 받게 되었다. 피고인은 피해자 공소외 1이 경찰공무원증을 제시하고 경찰관 신분임을 고지한 뒤에 검문을 하려고 하자 “씨발놈아 쫓아오지 마, 쫓아오면 죽여 버린다.”라는 취지로 욕을 하면서 약 200m를 뛰어 도망가다가 갑천중학교 정문 부근에서 빗길에 미끄러져 넘어졌다. 이어서 피고인은 자신을 추격해 온 피해자 공소외 1 및 그와 같은 형사과 소속의 경사인 피해자 공소외 2로부터 재차 경찰공무원증을 제시받으면서 피해자 공소외 2로부터 “왜 도망을 가냐”라는 질문을 받자, 갑자기 주먹으로 피해자 공소외 1의 왼쪽 턱 부위를 한대 때리고, 발로 그의 허벅지를 수회 걷어차고, 계속하여 이를 말리던 피해자 공소외 2의 왼쪽 머리부위를 주먹으로 1회 때리고, 발로 그의 왼쪽 종아리 부위를 1회 걷어찼다.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by the police officers with respect to the questioning, etc. of the above police officers, and at the same time, the victim non-indicted 1 placed an inner legine, etc. requiring approximately three weeks of medical treatment, and the victim non-indicted 2 placed a light fluoral base requiring approximately three weeks of medical treatment.

3. Determination

A. Summary of the judgment of the court below

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant was subject to questioning at the time of the instant case, and that the defendant was not subject to questioning at the legitimate method under the Act on the Performance

B. Judgment of the court below

1) Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: ① from around 02:50 on July 15, 2009 to around 03:50, the defendant was informed of Non-indicted 1's vehicle's knife with knife, and attempted rape between Non-indicted 1 and Non-indicted 2's knife, and Non-indicted 1's vehicle's knife with knife, Non-indicted 3's knife with knife, and Non-indicted 2's knife at around 0:10 on July 17, 200, Non-indicted 1's knife, Non-indicted 1's knife-kick, and the defendant was trying to knife Non-indicted 2's knife-kick, and his knife-kined to the Daejeon Police Station's knife.

2) Determination on the obstruction of performance of official duties

The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Code is established only when the performance of official duties is legitimate. Here, legitimate performance of official duties refers not only to the abstract authority of a public official, but also to the case where the act satisfies the legal requirements and methods concerning specific performance of duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do148, Sept. 8, 2006). Therefore, in this case, whether the police officer's non-examination of the defendant was legitimate or not.

Article 3 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers may stop and ask questions to a person who has a considerable reason to suspect that he has committed or is about to commit a crime, judging from his suspicious behavior and other surrounding circumstances (Article 1). In this case, the police officer, while presenting to the person concerned a certificate indicating his identity, shall specify his affiliation and name, and explain the purpose and reason thereof (Article 4), and the person concerned shall not be detained unless it is governed by the Act on Criminal Procedure, and shall not be compelled to answer against his will (Article 7).

According to the above provision, a person who has considerable grounds to suspect that he/she has committed, or is about to commit, any crime based on a reasonable judgment on the suspicious act and other surrounding circumstances. In this case, a person is a person who is suspected of having committed, or is about to commit, any crime. The suspicious operation refers to a situation in which he/she is suspected of being out of ordinary activities in view of natural behavior, attitude, language, appearance, personal belongings, etc., and other surrounding circumstances refer to the situation other than the directly tracing situation of the person, such as the time and physical situation according to the day-time approval at night, whether he/she is not a dangerous object, and his/her attitude and personal situation such as the attitude of the person surrounding. When there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he/she has committed, or is about to commit, any crime by taking such circumstances into consideration, it refers to a reasonable possibility to the extent that he/she has naturally thought such crime, and in such a case, it refers to a reasonable possibility to the extent that he/she is deemed to have been aware of it, rather than the arrest or detention under the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, a police officer may stop a person subject to inspection in accordance with the above provision and question him/her. Here, the stop means stopping in the case of a pedestrian, or stopping in the case of a person on board a motor vehicle, earth, sand, or bicycle. In light of the purport of the system of non-examination, it is deemed that a police officer’s explanation that a person who fails to clearly determine whether to stop is clearly determined is at a certain distance and cooperates in his/her duties by oral means is permitted unless he/she restricts the freedom of his/her physical movement. However, as long as responding to questions that are the object of suspension is left at the discretion of the other party, it is practically impermissible to prevent the other party from leaving the place by means of blocking the other party from driving his/her body, cutting off his/her motor vehicle, sand, bicycle, etc., using force to prevent him/her from driving, or not returning his/her belongings.

이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 먼저 앞에서 본 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 이 사건 전날 갈마공원에서 발생한 사건의 용의자 인상착의는 ‘20~30대 남자, 신장 170cm 가량, 뚱뚱한 체격, 긴 머리, 둥근 얼굴, 상의 흰색 티셔츠, 하의 검정색 바지, 검정색 신발 착용’이었고, 공소외 2는 당시 탐문 및 잠복근무를 나가기 전 고지받은 월평동, 갈마동 일대의 강도강간미수 사건의 용의자 인상착의를 ‘키 175cm 가량, 마른 체형, 안경 착용’이라고 기억하고 있었던 반면 피고인은 키 179cm, 몸무게 81kg으로 건장한 체형이고 안경을 착용하며 이 사건 당시 하얀 나이키 운동화를 착용하고 있었기 때문에 위 용의자의 인상착의와는 다소 일치하지 않았던 점, ② 공소외 1은 월평동, 갈마동 일대의 강도강간미수 사건의 용의자 인상착의를 ‘30대 초중반, 신장 178~180cm, 건장한 체격, 나이키 신발 착용’이라고 기억하고 있지만 갈마공원에서 발생한 사건의 용의자 족적은 2009. 7. 16. 경찰청에 감정의뢰한 상태였기 때문에 다음날인 이 사건 당일 새벽경에는 피고인이 신고 있었던 나이키 운동화의 밑바닥과 거의 일치한다는 것이 밝혀지지 않았고 피고인이 체포된 후에야 피고인이 신고 있던 나이키 신발의 밑바닥과 비교하여 위 용의자 족적이 나이키 신발로 밝혀진 점에 비추어 공소외 1이 기억하는 용의자 인상착의는 이 사건 발생에 따라 왜곡된 기억으로 보여 피고인의 인상착의와 비슷하다고 단정할 수 없는 점, ③ 피고인이 이 사건 당시 수상한 행적을 한 사실은 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 당시 공소외 1, 2가 피고인이 위 강도강간미수 사건의 용의자일 수 있다는 합리적인 가능성을 제기할 만한 사정이 있었다고 인정되지 않으므로 피고인은 이 사건 당시 불심검문의 대상이 된다고 보기 어렵다.

Even if the defendant becomes the object of the non-examination at the time of the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts charged and the evidence mentioned earlier, i.e., ① the defendant was unaware of the contents of each attempted rape case from the day of the instant case or before it, and at the latest time, the defendant might not be a police officer when he got a non-examination from the non-indicted 1 and 2. In light of the time when the instant case occurred, the reasons leading to the non-examination, the circumstance leading to the police officer's questioning, the process of questioning the police officer's identification at the place leading to the death, and thus, the defendant's non-indicted 1's act of refusing the examination by using the same method as the defendant's allegation is acceptable, and ② the defendant did not respond to the non-indicted 1's legitimate act of obstructing the defendant from participating in the police officer's act of obstructing the defendant from participating in the police officer's questioning or interfering with the non-indicted 2's act of obstructing the defendant from participating in the police officer's questioning.

3) Determination as to injury

In a case where an injury is inflicted on a public prosecutor or police officer in the course of resisting illegal emergency arrest or arrest of an offender in the act of committing an act of self-defense, it constitutes self-defense (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do148, Sept. 8, 2006; 2006Do2732, Nov. 23, 2006, etc.).

As seen earlier, it is recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury on the non-indicted 1 and 2 for about three weeks of medical treatment, but the above injury occurred in the course of resisting the unexplosive autopsy that deviates from lawful performance of official duties and does not meet any substantive requirements and deviates from the method limit, and in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act of inflicting an injury on the non-indicted 1 and 2 in the course of resisting to escape from the current infringement of the body due to illegal unexplosive questioning constitutes self-defense, and thus, the illegality of the defendant's act of inflicting an injury as above constitutes self-defense. Thus, the judgment of the court below which convicted the non-indicted 1 and 2 of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as stated in Paragraph 2, but this falls under a case where there is no proof of crime or no crime as stated in Paragraph 3-b above, and thus, a not-guilty verdict is rendered under the former and latter parts of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this judgment is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal

Judges Ansan-hwan (Presiding Judge)