[1] The meaning of "legal performance of official duties" in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and its standard of determination

[2] In a case where Defendant (a party member) was indicted for obstruction of special performance of official duties by obstructing an investigative agency’s search and seizure of a server managing Party A’s party members roster, etc., the case affirming the judgment below convicting Defendant on the ground that the investigative agency’s execution of official duties, based on the search and seizure warrant issued by the court, was lawful

[1] Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 136(1) and 144(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 24(3) and (4) of the Political Parties Act, Article 106(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Do3485 Decided April 12, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1186) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4721 Decided April 28, 2011, Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1281 Decided February 15, 2013

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Ho-sung

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012No3336 decided January 31, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal disputing criminal facts

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant could not be exempted from liability as well as the direct contribution of the Defendant, and that the Defendant could also be recognized as having committed an intentional act that had a stone with a stone in the police room, inasmuch as it was acknowledged that the Defendant and the members of the ○○○○ Party, who were at the scene of the server search and seizure, engaged in an implicit solicitation and communication regarding the assault to prevent the search and seizure between the Defendant and the members of the ○○○○○ Party, who were involved in the server search and seizure, shared the act of executing the joint purpose.

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court that maintained the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles, such determination by the court below is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles regarding joint principal offenders, or of misapprehending the rules of logic and experience and violating the principle of free evaluation

2. As to the ground of appeal disputing the legality of performing official duties

The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is established when a public official's performance of official duties is legitimate. The legitimate execution of official duties is not only within the abstract authority of the public official, but also within the authority of the public official, and must meet the requirements and methods as an act of official duties. Whether a public official's performance of official duties is legitimate must be determined objectively and reasonably based on the specific situation at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do3485, Apr. 12, 2002; 2008Do4721, Apr. 28, 2011).

For reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) the method of disclosing a roster of party members cannot be construed as a provision limiting the method of disclosing it to “inspection”; (b) Article 24(4) of the Political Parties Act does not constitute “when there are other provisions in the Act” under the proviso of Article 106(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the exceptions to search and seizure by warrant, as a provision that planned to seize and seize a roster of party members; and (c) in this case, the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office and the investigator of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office were lawful execution of official duties who seizes the server that manages ○○○○○○○ party’s roster upon the search and seizure warrant

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court that maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and relevant statutes, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the Constitution, the Political Parties Act, and the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the search and seizure of a roster of party members, by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, by exceeding the bounds of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)