Defendant

Freeboard (prosecution), Park Jong-young (Public trial)

Attorneys Song-ho et al. and one other

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

At around 03:10 on February 21, 2013, the Defendant: “○○○○○○○○○○, located in the branch of Sungnam-si ( Address 1 omitted); the Defendant received a report on a request for support from the guard company that there was a drinking problem; Nonindicted 1 (year 31) and Nonindicted 2 (year 39) of the police officers assigned to the guard station, who were the victim, and called Nonindicted 1 (age 39) and Nonindicted 2 (age 39) of the assistant police officer, who were called the victim, shall hear the circumstances that the Defendant left the place without paying the drinking value, and that there was a female employees and the head of the brigade; the Defendant shall prevent the Defendant from going out of the restaurant; and Nonindicted 1 (age 1 omitted); and (b) “At the same time, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 (age 1) have come to the right shoulder of the Defendant’s body.”

At around 04:10 on the same day, the Defendant continued to see Nonindicted 3 (55) in the Gyeonggi Branch Police Station located in Sungnam-si ( Address 2 omitted), the police officer assigned to the Suwon Branch Police Station at the time of Sungnam-si (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”) reported Nonindicted 2 on Nonindicted 2, who arrested the Defendant’s handets who was charged with the Defendant’s handball, and saw Nonindicted 2’s chest on two occasions by drinking the Defendant’s hand. Nonindicted 2’s chest was towed and towed, and he was towed by Non-Indicted 3’s flaps, and was sated one time by drinking, and his face was taken twice.

As above, the Defendant inflicted injury on Nonindicted 1, such as salt, tensions, etc., in which treatment for about three weeks is required, on the part of Nonindicted 2, on the part of Nonindicted 3, on the part of Nonindicted 3, on the part of Nonindicted 3, on the part of Nonindicted 1, on the part of Nonindicted 2, on the part of Nonindicted 3, on the part of Nonindicted 3, the part of Nonindicted 3, on the part of Nonindicted 3, such as

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 1

1. The prosecutor’s statement of Nonindicted 2

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 6

1. Each written statement of Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 8, and Nonindicted 9

1. Each injury diagnosis report and medical certificate;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Each photograph;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Code: Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Claims by the defendant and defense counsel;

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's act in the above car page constitutes legitimate act of resistanceing to those arrested or detained by the police, and that the defendant's act in the patrol box constitutes self-defense as an act to escape from the present infringement of his body due to illegal arrest, and thus, the defendant is innocent.

2. Determination

First of all, the defendant's act in the above car page was examined, although the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2 did not present the public official identification card of national police officer, which is a certificate when they obstructed the defendant's career, it cannot be deemed that the defendant was arrested or detained merely by blocking the defendant's career, and in such a situation, it is difficult to view it as an act that does not violate the social rules that makes the victim speak as stated in the facts of crime and uses violence.

Next, the Defendant’s act of assaulting Nonindicted 2, who was arrested by Nonindicted 3, within the police box, on the Defendant’s act within the patrol box, and continuously assaulted Nonindicted 3, who attempted to restrain the Defendant’s lock, cannot be deemed as an act of considerable reason to prevent unjust infringement of legal interests caused by illegal arrest.

Therefore, this part of the defendant and defense counsel cannot be accepted.

1. Summary of the obstruction of performance of official duties among the facts charged of the instant case

At around 03:10 on February 21, 2013, the Defendant: “○○○○○○○○○○, located in the branch of Sungnam-si ( Address 1 omitted); and, upon receiving a report on a request for assistance from the security service company, the victim; Nonindicted Party 1 (age 31) and Nonindicted Party 2 (age 39) called Nonindicted Party 1 (age 39) to get out of the restaurant without paying the drinking value to the female employees and the head of the brigade; the Defendant heard the circumstances that Nonindicted Party 1 would come out of the restaurant; Nonindicted Party 1 would prevent the Defendant from getting out of the restaurant; and “on the other hand, Nonindicted Party 1 will get out of the restaurant,” and “on the other hand, she will get out of the body of Nonindicted Party 1 (age 31) and she will get out of the body of the Defendant.”

At around 04:10 on the same day, the Defendant continued to see Nonindicted 3 (55) in the Gyeonggi Branch Police Station located in Sungnam-si ( Address 2 omitted), the police officer assigned to the Suwon Branch Police Station at the time of Sungnam-si (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant”) reported Nonindicted 2 on Nonindicted 2, who arrested the Defendant’s handets who was charged with the Defendant’s handball, and saw Nonindicted 2’s chest on two occasions by drinking the Defendant’s hand. Nonindicted 2’s chest was towed and towed, and he was towed by Non-Indicted 3’s flaps, and was sated one time by drinking, and his face was taken twice.

The Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties in relation to the operation of 112 reporting and withdrawal of victims, maintenance of order, criminal investigation and prevention and suppression of crimes.

2. Claims by the defendant and defense counsel;

The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is established only when the performance of official duties is legitimate. Since the performance of duties by Nonindicted 1, 2, and 3, who are police officers, was not legitimate in this case, the Defendant is not guilty.

3. Determination

A. Article 3(1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers provides that a person who has a reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime, or who is deemed to have knowledge of a crime already committed or to be committed, may stop questioning of the person who is deemed to have knowledge of the fact in relation to the crime. Article 3(4) of the same Act provides that when the police officer wishes to ask questions under the above provision, the police officer shall present to the person concerned a certificate indicating his identity and indicate his name and explain the purpose and reason. Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the police officer's certificate indicating his identity is a public official of the national police officer.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it can be acknowledged that Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 did not present a certificate indicating their status or indicate their name, etc. when Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 request for the assistance of security service company, and Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 were on the part of the Defendant at the time of their dispatch to the above Kaka Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa P, when Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 wanted to find out the circumstances from the head of the female Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa P, the Defendant attempted to leave the above Ka Pa Pa Pa P. Pa Pa P. Pa P. Pa P, when Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 demanded the explanation of the situation, they failed to present a certificate indicating their status, and Nonindicted 1’s name, etc. after Nonindicted 1 prevented the Defendant’s career and then

Thus, the execution of the duties by Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 in the above carpets is illegal as it goes against Article 3(4) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers concerning the Unexplosion, and it is also unlawful since the performance of duties by Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2 in the manual box is also a series of illegal performance of duties.

4. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty on the defendant under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as the defendant is found guilty on a crime of injury in a commercial concurrent relationship, the judgment of innocence shall not be rendered separately

The number of judges: