The judgment below

The acquittal portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, there is a violation of the Act on 119 Rescue and Emergency Medical Services.

As to the violation of the Framework Act on Fire Fighting among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court: ① interference with the activities of the 119 Rescue and Emergency Medical Services Commission members in an emergency rescue situation with the Defendant’s individual not only constitutes a violation of the Framework Act on Fire Fighting, but also constitutes a violation of the Act on 119 Rescue and Emergency Medical Services; ② interfere with the activities of the 119 first aid staff members; ② interfere with the activities of the 119 first aid staff members; and ② after the 119 first aid staff members transferred the Defendant to the hospital and transferred the Defendant to the medical staff, the direct rescue activities were completed; thus, the crime of the Framework

Based on the judgment, innocence was pronounced.

However, “emergency” under the 119 Rescue and Emergency Medical Services Act refers to “activities for consultation, emergency treatment, and transportation with respect to an emergency patient.” Since the first-aid activities include additional measures, such as providing information on the cause and condition of the emergency patient’s injury to a doctor after the transfer of the hospital, and creating a situation in which the emergency patient can receive medical treatment, the lower court’s judgment that the Defendant’s obstruction occurred after the completion of the first-aid activities is unreasonable as it excessively narrow interpretation of the scope of the first-aid activities.

It is considered ex officio prior to the judgment on the reasons for each appeal.

In the first instance, the prosecutor filed an application for permission to modify the indictment to “Article 50 subparag. 1 and 16(2) of the Framework Act on Fire Services” in the applicable law to “Article 119 Rescue and Emergency Medical Services Act” among the names of the instant crimes, which are “violation of the Framework Act on Fire Services” and “Article 28 and 13(2) of the Act on 119 Rescue and Emergency Medical Services,” and the court permitted this and changed the subject matter of adjudication, and thus, the acquitted part of the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the changed indictment.