2015 Height of Performance of Official Duties

A person shall be appointed.

National Emergency (Court Prosecution) (Court Prosecution, this peace, Kim Il-il, and Ison (Court Trial)

Attorney Lee Jae-soo

November 4, 2015

The defendant shall be innocent.

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

1. Facts charged

피고인은 2014 . 9 . 6 . 05 : 00경 대전 서구 * * 앞길에서 폭력신고를 받고 출동 중이던 대전둔산경찰서 갈마지구대 소속인 경위 A , 경장 B , 경위 C , 경사 D이 술에 취해 길 한가운데로 걷고 있는 피고인에게 경적을 울리며 비켜달라고 요구하였음에도 불응하여 도로에 그대로 서 있었다는 이유로 시비가 되어 경찰관들에게 " 짭새 새끼들이 지랄한 다 " 고 욕설을 하면서 순찰차를 가로막은 후 상의를 벗고 몸에 물을 뿌리고 순찰차 본 네트를 양손으로 치는 등의 방법으로 약 20여 분간 공무수행 중인 경찰관들의 업무를 방해하고 도로에서 교통에 방해되는 방법으로 서 있었다 .

2. Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant, who was walking before the patrol police officer, stated that the defendant, who was walking before the patrol police officer, was not in front of the patrol while resisting the defendant. The police officer notified the defendant that he would arrest the defendant as a flagrant offender in the obstruction of performance of official duties. The defendant's resistance was off his body and b off his body, c, and was friendly with the defendant's body (the witness A, the C, and D stated that the defendant was out of the patrol police officer's body, and did not have been arrested, but did not have been able to consistently stated that the defendant was out of the investigative agency's seat during the course of the investigation * in light of the fact that the defendant was out of the police officer's body and carried out the patrol, and did not have been able to bear the flag in good hand (the witness Gap, the B, the C, and D stated that he was out of the witness's body and did not have his flaged.)

The issue of whether a person satisfies the requirements for arrest shall not be determined based on the situation at the time of arrest, rather than on the circumstances revealed after the fact. The judgment of a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer, etc. in relation to this issue shall be determined based on the situation at the time of arrest. However, in a case where a prosecutor or a senior judicial police officer’s judgment on the fulfillment of the requirements is considerably unreasonable in light of the empirical rule in light of the situation at the time of arrest, the arrest is illegal (see Supreme Court Order 2002Mo81, Mar. 27, 2003, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, it cannot be deemed that there was an assault as referred to in the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties solely on the ground that the defendant merely did not appear on the road without any specific tangible force, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was an offense of crime as to the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties. Therefore, the above arrest of a flagrant offender cannot be deemed to exist clearly. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the above arrest of a flagrant offender is legitimate, and that the act of releasing the defendant from the line of duty and spreading water to the body of the defendant against illegal arrest, etc., cannot be deemed as an act of obstructing official duties under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

Furthermore, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record and pleading that the Defendant had taken the way to obstruct traffic on the road at the time of the instant case: (a) the Defendant, who was walking along the road at the time of the instant case, was a police officer to resist the Defendant’s resistance; (b) to resist the police officer’s lawful arrest of the police officer; (c) to resist the police officer’s act of cutting off, dusting, and sate off the road thereafter; (d) to resist the police officer’s legitimate arrest; (e) the place where the patrol is underway is set up on both sides of the road; (e) while there is no separate delivery; (e) driving of the vehicle at the night or at night is more distance between the passage of the road at ordinary times; and (e) the road at this case’s time is the width of the vehicle to the extent that the vehicle might flow to the road at this point; and (e) the Defendant’s act constitutes an act of infringement of legal interests and interests other than an act of infringement upon the Defendant’s motive or use of force against the police officer before the illegal arrest.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a not-guilty verdict is rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this judgment is publicly announced pursuant to Article 58(2)

Judges Lee Dong-sik