2016Do7327 A. Performance of official duties

(b) Damage to public goods;

A

Prosecutor

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2015No1351 Decided April 29, 2016

February 9, 2017

Of the judgment below, the part on the obstruction of performance of official duties is reversed, and this part of the case is Seoul Northern Site.

shall be remanded to the Collegiate Panel of the Court.

The prosecutor's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to damage to public goods

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s ground for appeal

The judgment of the first instance that acquitted all of the facts charged on the ground that there is no proof of crime.

It is just to maintain the law of reason and experience as it is, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the contrary, there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation.

2. As to the obstruction of performance of official duties

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: "The defendant is located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C around November 25, 2013, 23:50.

The Empha of the Jungran Police Station in receipt of a report on illegal business while drinking alcohol in the room of the "Dnoman bank".

F Officer F and Inspector G find them and enter them into the site, and f together with the defect, f

F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F.

D. D. F. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H.

Father Father’s arms, fatbling bat, batling bat and drinking back from F.

F F by assaulting F, such as making a number of chest parts of F, batling F’s bat and batling F, etc.

"The legitimate execution of duties in relation to the maintenance of order was hindered."

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that ① Police Officer G who was at the present site is the defendant.

In a timely manner, only warning that a person can be punished as a crime of insult is not required to arrest a flagrant offender as a crime of insult.

Obstruction of the performance of official duties when failing to sing out of the singing room later and serving the defendant on the patrol vehicle.

(2) Even if the situation at the time is based on the video data recorded, it shall be deemed to be arrested as a crime.

It does not seem to have tried to arrest Defendant in the act of insult as a crime of insult, and ③ the Defendant is hardening.

The reason for arrest is that the witness has been secured for the control of singing rather than because of the offense of insult.

It appears that there was a need to do so due to the need to do so, and ④ the Defendant’s singinging control service by the police.

The case itself is minor, five defendants, because the defendant has expressed a contingent desire in the process of a claim.

of this case, it is difficult to deem that there was a concern that the police officer might flee or destroy evidence, and that the police officer was at the time.

C. It is difficult to see that there was a circumstance to immediately arrest the Defendant as an offender.

In addition, the first instance court held that it is difficult to view the police officer's arrest act as a legitimate official duty.

The conviction was reversed and acquitted.

However, by the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court and the lower court, the following:

In other words, G does not give notice from the court to the effect that G is arrested as an offense of insult.

The arrest of a flagrant offender is only a warning that such offense may be arrested, and a notice of arrest of a flagrant offender shall be issued by the principal.

n. The purport that "if other police officers intend to board a patrol boat outside the sing room, the same shall apply to cases where they intend to do so."

fact that the statement is made, but it is somewhat little of one year and seven months after the date of occurrence of the instant case.

It appears that it is a statement dependent on an uncertain memory, and ② the situation at the time of direct evidence is rather the direct evidence.

According to the video data recorded, in the front corridor of the Defendant’s heading room of a singing room, the Defendant G and F’s heading

Before preventing them from intending to enter the room, G took a bath, and twice the Defendant’s bath.

G from a defect of the words that the defendant continued even after the enemy is "the arrest of the defendant in the act of insult"

I clearly identify the fact that he/she has issued a notice of arrest in the act of committing an offense, stating that he/she may appoint a lawyer.

(3) At the time G and F reports on illegal business by singing, such as alcoholic beverage sales and loan employment.

Finding a large number of beer loans and cans in a house in which the defendant was called up;

and with the consent of singing-sing-sing-sing-sing-sing-sing-sing-sing-sings.

G was pushed out of the heading room while stopping this and making a strong clause, and in the process, several different vehicles were used.

As he/she continues to give a warning to G and F several times even after he/she took a bath, he/she is a crime of insult.

It seems to have been arrested, but simply securing witnesses for the control of illegal business in singing.

For the purpose of arresting the defendant, and 4 The defendant's legitimate union by police officers

In the course of responding to the duty of regulating illegal business operations, the content and frequency of the bath, and continuing the bath;

In light of the time and the circumstances of physical fighting, etc., it cannot be readily concluded that the offense of insult is very minor.

(5) The Defendant pointed out that G was able to take a bath at any time and strongly deny his desire.

In light of the fact that police officers and police officers have fighting on their body, they shall destroy evidence or flee.

In addition, it is difficult to deem that there was no concern about the arrest of the defendant in the act of crime.

To see the police officers who intend to arrest him/her and to unilaterally out his/her singing, etc.

(6) the police officer’s attempt to arrest the accused;

As above, the defendant interfered with the police's duty of regulating illegal business operations, and the defendant's abusive and physical fighting

The defendant's personal information was not secured at all, and arrest was conducted on the job site.

(7) Notice of arrest of an offender in the act of committing an offense is not necessary.

Then, the process of arresting the defendant who would leave the scene of F to restrain him/her from leaving the scene;

In light of the fact that the Defendant’s assault was committed in the crime of insult, F is an offender of insult.

The process of arrest as a person is highly likely to be regarded as a legitimate execution of official duties.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision is clearly clear on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

It is difficult to deem that a procedure to arrest a flagrant offender exists or a public official is lawful.

decently, the Defendant committed an assault to F to escape from F by a police officer F with whom he was employed.

The logic of determining that the defendant cannot be said to have committed the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

He/she exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the rules of experience or arrest and official duty of flagrant offenders.

There is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding legal principles on whereabouts and self-defense.

3. Conclusion

Of the judgment below, the part on the obstruction of performance of official duties is reversed, and this part of the case is re-examined.

The case is remanded to the court below for determination, and the remainder of the appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed, and the participation stand.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Jae-han

Justices Kim In-young

Justices Lee Dong-won