Defendant

Defendant

St. Hadrified

Attorney Gangwon-gu et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Gohap1009 Decided November 23, 2007

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Two days of detention before pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake

Vehicles driving by the defendant are not dangerous objects to the extent that they do harm to human body.

In addition, the Defendant did not intentionally inflict an injury on five police officers, such as Nonindicted Party 1, etc.

B. Legal principles

Since the defendant's peaceful demonstration is unfair, the defendant's act is justified to avoid such an unfair suppression.

2. Ex officio determination

In the trial court, the prosecutor applied for amendments to an indictment with regard to the name of the defendant as "Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Injury," and the applicable provisions of law as "Articles 136 (1), 257 (1), and 40 of the Criminal Act," and applied for amendments to an indictment with regard to the deletion of "a dangerous object" among the facts charged in the judgment below. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence acknowledged by this court is as stated in the judgment below, except for the deletion of "hazardous goods" among the facts constituting an offense of the judgment below, and therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

1. As to the obstruction of performance of official duties

The defendant asserts that police officers' act of suppression of demonstration is not an act of legitimate execution of official duties.

According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, on May 15, 2007, the defendant as the head of the Council of Bereaved Family of the Pacific War Victims reported to the Commissioner of Busan Local Police Agency on May 15, 2007 at an outdoor assembly ( demonstration) for victims of damage to the Pacific War; on May 21, 2007, the date and time of holding the assembly "Feng-do 10:00 to 19:00"; on June 21, 2007, the above bereaved family members of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency (Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency 2:1:00 to 200 to 7:0 to 7:5:0 to 7:0 to 7:5:0 to 20 to 17:5:6:0 to 20 to 7:5:0 to 200 to 1:6:0 to 200 to 7:7:0 to 207 to see the above information of the Korean Police Police Station.

On the other hand, Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that a person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit to the chief of the competent police station a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, number of participants, method of demonstration (including route and route), etc. The proviso of the same Article provides that if the place of outdoor assembly or demonstration falls under the jurisdiction of at least two police stations, he/she shall submit a report to the chief of the competent police agency, and if the place falls under the jurisdiction of at least two local police agencies, he/she shall submit a report to the chief

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is hard to see that the defendant's outdoor assembly of this case to which the defendant reported the outdoor assembly of this case to the Korean Embassy in Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul and to which the defendant moved to the Korean Embassy as well as the west-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul to which the defendant reported to the Commissioner of the Local Police Agency for the outdoor assembly of this case. According to the above, it is hard to see that the outdoor assembly of this case to which the defendant moved to the Korean Embassy as the Korean Embassy because it clearly deviates from the scope of the report, such as the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. of the report, and it is difficult to see that the reported outdoor assembly of this case (number omitted) is identical to the reported outdoor assembly of this case (number number omitted), and there is no evidence to see that the assembly of this case to see that it is a witness of the Korean Embassy-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul, and there is no room to see that it is a "Seoul Gyeongjin-gu, Gojin-gu" as a witness report of this case.

Thus, the police officers belonging to the Seoul Western Police Station's crime prevention patrol group's act of blocking the defendant's demonstration is recognized as legitimate act for traffic flow or maintenance of traffic order. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the police officers' act is illegal is without merit.

2. As to the crime of injury

The defendant asserts that there was no intentional injury to five police officers.

Based on the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant led to the confession of the fact that the defendant was making excessive operation of the vehicle in the court of the court below to 5 persons, and in full view of the police statements of the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 4, the police statements of the non-indicted 5, the non-indicted 6, the non-indicted 1, and the written statements of the non-indicted 7, the medical statements of the non-indicted 5, the non-indicted 6, the non-indicted 1, and the written statements of the non-indicted 8, the non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2's part of the trial statement

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 136(1) (U.S.) and 257(1) (U.S.) of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments prescribed for the Crimes of Bodily Harm to Victims Non-Indicted 5)

1. Selection of punishment;

Imprisonment Selection

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of Conditions favorable to the Defendant among the Reasons for Sentencing below)

While the Defendant occupied the road along with the bereaved family members of the war victim and attempted to move to the Embassy of Japan, the crime of causing bodily injury to the police by driving more than five passengers as the police was stopped, the crime of this case was committed contingently, the Defendant committed the crime of this case, the degree of injury to the police who suffered the injury, the Defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment other than the criminal offense sentenced to a fine, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the conditions of the sentencing indicated in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined by taking into account the following factors.

Judges Jo Hee-de (Presiding Judge)