The case holding that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant gave rise to the death of a university student participating in a demonstration, who reads the police officer for the suppression of the demonstration and caused other members of the demonstration to assault him/her.

Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 144(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

One hundred days out of the detention days before the judgment is rendered shall be included in the above sentence.

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

Of the facts charged of this case, the charge of causing special obstruction of performance of official duties is acquitted.

Criminal facts

On June 12, 193, the Defendant, while attending the 3th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the Korean University, was holding 10th anniversary of his/her opening of the 5th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 5th anniversary of his/her opening of the 5th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 5th anniversary of the 1st anniversary of the 1st 1st of the 15th anniversary of the 1st of the 1st.

1. Statements corresponding thereto in part by the defendant in this court;

1. Each statement corresponding thereto in this court, each of the suspect interrogation records against the accused prepared by the public prosecutor, which corresponds thereto, in light of the witness ionion, spatition, spatition, spatition, maximum leap, and lease rights;

1. Each on-site photograph attached to the investigation record, which is corresponding thereto;

1. Relevant legal principles concerning facts constituting a crime;

(a) Illegal assembly or demonstration participation: Articles 19(4) and 5(1)2 of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act;

(b) A general traffic obstruction: Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act;

2. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of the punishment prescribed for a general traffic obstruction in holding heavier punishment)

3. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

4. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( normal reference, such as where a defendant is a first offender and is detained for a long time as a student)

Of the facts charged, the summary of the obstruction of performance of official duties in the instant case is as follows: The defendant's use of approximately 50 students of the above demonstration, including the defendant, in the process of development of the demonstration as indicated in the judgment, into the front 392 Scambling by the police officers of Eunpyeong-dong, and the front 392 Scambling, the defendant maintained camblings on the front side of the police officers of the demonstration at the right point in the direction of the Scambing as soon as possible, and followed the police officers' use of the demonstration again to the front 6 police officers' use of the 7 Scambling in the process of development of the demonstration, and the defendant's use of the 7 Scambling by the 6 Scambing police officers' use of the remaining cambling by his/her own force after his/her use of the 6 Scambling force. The defendant's use of the remaining cambing by his/her own force after his/her use.

First, as stated in the facts charged, we examine whether or not the defendant involved in the assault, such as shotdo's chest part of the above Kim Jong-do's chest. The third self-written statement prepared by the police, the third suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the defendant, and the third suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the defendant against the defendant in the preparation of the judicial police assistant to this court, and the third suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the defendant in the third suspect interrogation protocol and the third suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the judicial police assistant cannot be used as evidence because the defendant denies each content of the above defendant's preparation, and it cannot be used as evidence because it cannot be used as evidence. Accordingly, it cannot be said that it is sufficient to find the defendant guilty of the part of the above facts charged. The reasons are as follows.

First, in light of the fact that the defendant appeared to be a criminal who had been present at the time after the same time with the testimony of the investigative agency and used the above Kim Jong-do, it is readily concluded that the defendant was an offender who had been present with the above Kim Jong-do. However, as to the time of this crime, the defendant was clearly changed from 10 seconds (two times the police protocol) to 1,2 seconds or shorter in this court, and there was no statement about 10 seconds or shorter in this court (2) as to the appearance of the defendant's suspect, it is hard to see that the remaining part of the defendant's body was used for the same purpose as that of the defendant's 1's new hard-fresh (3) as well as for the remaining part of the defendant's body, and thus, it is hard to see that the remaining part of the police prosecutor's body was out of the same way as that of the defendant's body, and thus, it is hard to see that the remaining part of the police prosecutor's body was out of 1 minute.

둘째 이 사건 범행 당시에 주위에는 시위진압경찰관들 및 구경꾼들이 수없이 많이 있었는데, 범인이 위 김춘도를 발로 차는 것을 목격하였다는 공소외 남정극, 이재덕, 김영선, 유종석, 정해천, 이금용(이재덕은 위 신춘균과 거의 같은 위치에 있었다) 등이 진술하는 범인의 인상착의가 위 신춘균의 진술부분과 상당 부분 상이[(남정극-머리 긴편, 베이지 바지, 횐색계통 운동화), (이재덕-키가 167cm), (김영선-횐 운동화), (유종석-어두운 남방), (정해천-흰색 티셔츠, 청바지, 횐 운동화), (이금용-상의 체크무늬)]할 뿐만 아니라 위 다른 목격자들은 아무도 피고인이 그 범인이라고 단정하지 못하고 있는 점(특히 그들 중 유종석, 정해천, 이금용 등은 시위진압 및 체포활동을 하는 경찰관들로서 사건 직후 시위현장을 찍은 수많은 사진들을 검토하였으며 그 당시 피고인이 시위를 주도함으로써 그 사진들 중에는 피고인의 영상이 뚜렷이 나와 있는 것이 많이 있었음에도 전혀 피고인을 범인으로 지목하지 못하였고, 그 중 위 정해천은 사진 대조과정에서 다른 시위참가자를 범인이라고 지목하기도 하였다) 등에 비추어 보면, 많은 목격자들 중 오로지 위 신춘균의 진술만을 받아들이고 다른 목격자들의 진술을 배척한다는 것은 위험하기 짝이 없는 것일 뿐만 아니라 증거법상으로도 허용될수 없는 것이라고 보아야 한다.

Third, even after the time of the instant demonstration, the Defendant was arrested on June 27, 1993 at the police station after the time of the instant demonstration, and the Defendant continued to appear in the police station who assaulted the suppression police in the vicinity of the demonstration, opened relief, opened the demonstration, and opened it in front of the police officers. After being aware of the death of the above Kim Chuncheon, the Defendant did not have any confidence in any other place, and was arrested on the police station on the same day after the time of the entrance into the normal course of the semester, while the Defendant was arrested at the police station on June 27, 1993. The Defendant’s behavior cannot be easily viewed as a criminal defendant’s active conviction in light of the contents and results of the instant case, which led the death of the police station in the suppression of the demonstration, and even if there is no reasonable doubt as to the Defendant’s new conviction in the criminal trial, there is no reasonable doubt as to the Defendant’s new conviction in the criminal trial as well as on the record.

그 밖에 검사가 유죄의 증거로 제출한 각 증거들 중 정진석, 최종운의 수사기관 이래 이 법정에서의 각 진술은 위 신춘균이 수사기관에 출두하여 조사받은 경위 또는 위 신춘균의 진술을 기초로 하는 진술들에 불과할 뿐이며, 진압경찰인 이진광, 안윤식, 유종석, 정해천, 이금용의 각 수사기관 이래 이 법정에서의 각 진술도 이진광, 안윤식은 범인이 위 김춘도를 발로 차는 장면을 보지 못하였다는 것이고, 그 나머지의 각 진술 역시 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고인이 위 김춘도를 발로 찬 범인인지 모르겠다는 취지이므로 위 각 진술만으로는 피고인이 위 김춘도를 발로 찼다고 인정하기 부족하며, 달리 이를 인정할 아무런 증거가 없다.

If so, without examining the reason for the death of the above Kim Jong-do, this part of the facts charged against the defendant constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the

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

Judges Lee Dong-ho (Presiding Judge)