Defendant

The gardening promotion;

Attorney Jeong Jong-soo

The defendant shall be innocent.

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

1. Summary of the facts charged

1. Interference with business;

On April 17, 2009, from around 19:00 to 20:00 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s restaurant business by force by avoiding disturbances, such as the Defendant’s leakage in Gangnam-gu Seoul Newdong (number 1 omitted) and Nonindicted Party 1’s “○○○○” restaurant operated by Nonindicted Party 1, the victim, who was the victim, by stopping the credit card used by the Defendant, and preventing the Defendant from using it.

2. Violence;

At around 20:00 on April 17, 2009, the Defendant assaulted the victim of the victim Nonindicted Party 2 (age 47) who was the vehicle of the Defendant, who attempted to assist the police officers dispatched after receiving 112 a report, and attempted to restrain the Defendant, on a one-time basis, at the instant “○○○○○○” restaurant.

3. Performance of official duties.

At around 20:00 on April 17, 2009, the Defendant: (a) arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender and was called up on the road front of the said “○○○○○○○” restaurant; (b) inflicted injury on Nonindicted 3, a slope of the Gangnam Police Station, who was called up upon receiving a 112 report, such as the closure of the bones, in which Nonindicted 3 was unable to identify the number of treatment days, by arresting the Defendant as a flagrant offender; and (c) putting the face of Nonindicted 3, who was willing to cause the Defendant to resist while making a resistance at the lower end of the patrol, was taken once as head; and (d) by asking the left shoulder of the said Nonindicted 3.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers regarding the arrest of flagrant offenders, and at the same time injured Nonindicted 3 of the victim.

2. Prosecution of the defendant;

The defendant and his defense counsel are the restaurants operated by the defendant, not the victim, and the victims suffered violence and injury in the course of resistance by the police officers dispatched by the defendant to avoid being unlawfully forced.

3. Determination

A. As to interference with business

According to the results of the hearing of this case, it is recognized that the defendant "I am in the above ○○ cafeteria on the day of this case," "I am in the body of the defendant, so long as I am in the body of the am in the body of the customers," but there is no particular evidence other than the statement of the defendant and the victim, in order to interfere with the defendant's business, first of all, it should be recognized that the defendant's above act is a restaurant operated by the victim of this case.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined: (a) the Defendant and the mother, on January 3, 2005, leased a store in the above ○○○ cafeteria under the Defendant’s name and operated it; (b) the Defendant, at the time, was in bad credit standing due to the Internet shopping mall business, etc. previously operated; (c) the Defendant’s business registration was made in the name of Nonindicted 5, her mother; (d) the victim, who was residing in Gangwon-do and opened the ○ ○ cafeteria cafeteria, was paid daily and monthly salary from Nonindicted 5 while driving the ○ cafeteria at the ○○ cafeteria cafeteria, which was opened, after the lapse of one year; (e) the Defendant’s mother, changed the Defendant’s name from Nonindicted 5, the Defendant’s mother, but it appears that the Defendant did not have the right to use the ○ ○ cafeteria cafeteria as the victim’s right to use it for convenience, such as bank loan. However, it appears that the Defendant did not have any right to use it as the victim’s right to use.

B. As to the assault, obstruction of performance of official duties, and injury

Since violence and injury against the victims of the defendant occurred in the course of arresting the defendant in the act of committing an offense at the time, the arrest of the police officer in this case is reasonable.

Article 211(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "after the commission of a crime as a flagrant offender, i.e., a person who is the latter" means a person who arrests a flagrant offender immediately after the commission of the crime, from the standpoint of the person who arrests the offender. As such, Article 211(1) provides for "any person who is in the process of committing the crime" as to a flagrant offender within the original meaning of Article 211(1) provides for "any person who is in the process of committing the crime," and Article 211(2) provides for "after the commission of the crime is completed" means a period of time between the end of the crime and the end of the crime, or a period of time close to it. Thus, it is interpreted that only if it is clearly recognized that the person who is arrested in time and at a place is the offender who has committed the crime, and thus, constitutes an unlawful self-defense during the process of arresting a police officer (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1314, Sept. 24, 1991).

Based on the above legal principles, the record reveals that ① Nonindicted 4, a police officer, was at the above ○○ cafeteria on April 17, 2009 upon receipt of a report that the Defendant was suffering from disturbance, ② Nonindicted 4, at the time of arrival of the above ○○ cafeteria, was in a state where it was difficult to find out whether the Defendant was a person interfering with his business. Nonindicted 4, a police officer asked Nonindicted 1 as to who was responsible for interfering with his business; ③ Nonindicted 1 was on the inside of the restaurant, and Nonindicted 3, a police officer was serving as a seat of Nonindicted 1’s horse, and Nonindicted 2, a police officer called out to have the victim Nonindicted 1’s face during the process of assaulting Nonindicted 1’s horses and demanding him to accompany Nonindicted 1’s face during the process of arresting the Defendant, but the police officer’s request was to have the victim’s face known to him again during the process of arresting the Defendant, ⑤ Nonindicted 4, who refused to arrest the Defendant under the victim’s name.

C. Conclusion

Therefore, the facts charged in this case are found not guilty in accordance with Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of crime or it is not a crime.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Gangwon-gu