208 Fixed 1918(A) Special obstruction of Performance of Official Duties

B. Performance of official duties

(c) Injury;

1. A. A. Kim AA.*************) and non-service.

Not more than the beginning of the dwelling house;

Omission of the original domicile: Not more than the original domicile

2. (a) A.B (************) and non-service.

Not more than the beginning of the dwelling house;

Omission of the original domicile: Not more than the original domicile

3. A. (a) HeCC (**************)) and non-service.

Not more than the beginning of the dwelling house;

Omission of the original domicile: Not more than the original domicile

4. A. A. KimD (***************)*) and non-service.

Not more than the beginning of the dwelling house;

6. Omission of the reference domicile:

5.(b).(c) HuE (***************)) and non-service workers.

Not more than the beginning of the dwelling house;

Omission of the original domicile: Not more than the original domicile

Ethiode

Attorney Lee Young-young (for the defendant)

June 25, 2009

Defendant HuE shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Defendant HuE shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine. Defendant AAA, GongBB, HuCC, and KimD shall be acquitted. Defendant AA, GongB, HuCC, and KimD shall publicly notify the summary of each judgment on Defendant AA, GongB, HuCC, and KimD.

Criminal facts

Defendant HuE stated that, around 10:50 on November 28, 2007, at the 3rd city development project center in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, the Seoul Urban Development Project Center, along with other residents, the victim protection fund, who is the competent officer, could not receive unfair demand from the residents during an interview with the head of the city development center. In this regard, Defendant HuE stated that “this public official must die.” In doing so, Defendant HuE took a bath to the effect that “the victim’s head is added as soon as possible.” At the time of tree adjoining on the table, the victim interfered with legitimate performance of duties concerning the civil petition affairs of the above public official, and at the same time, cerebr the victim requiring two weeks medical treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant DoE’s partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness protection fund, KimG;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury)

2. Competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

3. Selection of punishment;

Selection of Fines

4. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

5. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the facts charged against Defendant KimAB, HeCC, and KimD is the co-chairperson of the Local Residents Support Committee and the head of the OO Village Relocation Measures Committee, Defendant HeB is the "Chairperson of the Village Relocation Measures", Defendant HeCC is the "Chairperson of the Village Relocation Measures", and Defendant KimD is the "head of the local Residents Support Committee". The Defendants are the "head of the local Residents Support Committee". The Defendants are the Changwon National Industrial Complex Development Project implemented from September 200 and around September 200 to the Development Zone of the Changwon National Industrial Complex, including the Defendants, incorporated into the Development Zone of the 00 Village in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and the residents' houses in three villages, including the Defendants, into the Development Zone, and they do not know the effective relocation measures, etc. in Changwon-si.In order to achieve the change of the purpose of the Resettlement Housing Site, the purpose of Defendant He is to obstruct the affairs by visiting the Changwon Broadcasting Center and demanding an interview in the original market, with the residents of drinking 60.

A. A. Around July 16, 2007, around 10:00, the chairperson of the three village and the general affairs of the president of the three village have decided to visit the creative viewing. Defendant KimD sent text messages to its members to the effect that “to be gathered in the future of the creative viewing at around 10:00 on July 18, 2007.” On July 18, 2007, at around 10:00, the Defendants and 60 residents gather together before the creative viewing hall around July 18, 2007, and then the Defendants and 60 residents gather with the creative market. On the other hand, the Defendants and 30 residents request the assistance of the creative market. Around 10:30 minutes of the corrective glass door for the purpose of viewing, fasting and shaking the door, etc., thereby obstructing the public service affairs, administrative affairs, etc. of the creative viewing public officials by showing multiple power (hereinafter referred to as “a public prosecution”).

B. On November 5, 2007, the chairperson of the three village and the general affairs of the above three village shall make a resolution to visit the creative viewing, and the text messages sent to the members of the defendant KimD to the effect that "the head of the original market room in around 10:00 on November 18, 2007" is "the head of the original market room in the original market" to the members of the defendant KimD. On November 9, 2007, at around 10:00, the defendants and 60 residents are gathered together on the second floor of the original city in the original city in the second floor in the original city, and the defendants and 60 residents are gathered at the same place, and the promotion of relief was made, and they interfered with the civil affairs and administrative affairs of the original citizens by avoiding multiple disturbances for about 30 minutes (hereinafter referred to as "paragraph (b)").

2. Determination

A. In the special crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, it is established when the multiple force of a group or multiple force of a group or a special crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is committed, which refers to a group of many people who did not form an organization, and this refers to a majority of the group or a majority of the group that could cause fear of causing them to feel pressure by the group force, and the majority of the group's force refers to the group's force that leads to suppressing the people's will by many people who are gathered in the form of a large number of people, and the number of those people shall be determined by taking into account the various circumstances at the time of the act. In this case, the other party's intent does not need to be practically controlled, but the degree of recognizing the other party's ability to control the other party's will should be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do174, Feb. 10, 206).

B. Judgment on the charge A

Recognition by comprehensively taking account of each evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, including each legal statement of the witness FF and KimGG

The following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendants and the residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendants, etc.”) visited the Changwon to hold an interview with the Changwon with the aim of delivering and fulfilling their demands, although their houses, etc. living in the development zone were incorporated into the development zone due to the said development project, but effective relocation measures, etc. for several years have not been taken. ② In the event the residents living in the local government visit the local government to hold an interview with the market, there is no need or restriction to take special procedures under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. ③ In order to prevent the Defendants from entering the market by using 60 or more public officials and police assigned for special guard, etc. at the Changwon city, the situation like the facts charged was occurred by correcting the entrance door and posting the above public officials and police assigned for special guard within the entrance. ④ In full view of the fact that the Defendants, etc. were admitted to the development project, and that there was no physical conflict between the public officials and the public officials (excluding GGG residents' physical size from the court to the extent that they did not have an interview with the outside of the market.

C. Judgment on the facts charged B

The following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor, including the witnessF’s legal statement, are ① the Defendants, etc., who were residing in the development zone due to the development project, were included in the development zone, but were effective relocation measures for several years, were visited to hold an interview with the original market. ② In the event the residents living in the local government visit the local government to hold an interview with the market, special procedures under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes do not seem to be necessary or restricted. ③ The Defendants, etc., who entered the market room and went back to the front corridor of the market room. As such, the Defendants were released from the front corridor of the market by the public officials. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendants, etc.: (i) the public officials and the public officials and the public officials were released from the police station to the extent that they were not able to have had a physical conflict with the public officials and the public officials and the public officials were released from the interview with the view that they did not have any physical conflict with the public officials and the public officials and the public officials and the public officials who were charged with the exercise of the office building beyond 1 hour.

3. Conclusion

Thus, each of the facts charged against Defendant KimA, PublicB, HeCC, and KimD constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the above Defendants shall be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment shall be published pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Young-ju