beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that police officers E, while lawfully handling 112 reports, tried to take a cell phone photograph from the Defendant in order to prevent the Defendant from taking and interfering with the cell phone pictures, and do not constitute “Seizure” under the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant exercised physical power to oppose “illegal seizure”, and even if so, it does not constitute a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties.
Even if a police officer's act of assault can be recognized
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Whether the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties was established or not, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the court below held that the police officer’s act of taking a cell phone of the defendant was unlawful seizure and exercising physical power to oppose the defendant.
Even if such testimony cannot be punished as a crime of interference with the performance of official duties, and thus, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the court below's decision of not guilty of the facts charged of this case for the above reasons is just and acceptable (in particular, since the witness E of the party witness E's testimony that "the defendant's act of taking the cell phone of this case did not interfere with the initial statement during the investigation process and it is difficult to believe that the witness's act of taking the cell phone of this case constitutes a crime such as interference with the police officer's duty to report or another crime, there is no ground to believe that the act of taking the cell phone of this case constitutes legitimate performance of official duties) and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts alleged by the public prosecutor