logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.07.11 2017노339
위계공무집행방해
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the search procedure of the search of the work vehicle of the Daejeon Prison entrusted to the Daejeon Prison is relatively mitigated compared to the procedure of bringing in goods to the general prisoner; (b) the work company is allowed to take part in the case of a corrosion that takes part of the work company's goods into custody by actively using the same appearance that does not contain any goods prohibited from bringing in; and (c) the said goods are brought into the prison with the work goods; and (d) the officer could be deemed to interfere with the execution of his duties by using a deceptive scheme that is practically difficult to detect under his ordinary work process, but the lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the contents of deceptive scheme as to interference with the execution of the work by fraudulent means.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The relevant legal doctrine imposes a duty not to impose a violation of discipline, such as using or accepting non-permitted articles on a prisoner or communicating with another person by telephone or other means without permission, and a correctional officer has a general official authority and duty to monitor, regulate, and launch the violation of discipline against a prisoner and report it to his/her superior and to refer it to disciplinary action.

As such, the mere fact that a prisoner commits a violation of the prohibition provision merely by avoiding a correctional officer’s surveillance and control does not constitute a crime of interference with the performance of official duties by fraudulent means. Moreover, even if a person other than a prisoner brings in prohibited goods by avoiding an inspection or surveillance by the correctional officer or makes contact with another person by telephone, etc. without permission, insofar as the correctional officer has the authority and duty to control and inspect the entry and exit of the correctional institution, etc., such an act by a person other than a prisoner is done by deceptive means, barring special circumstances.

arrow