beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although there is a fact that a public official belonging to the Suwon-gu Busan Metropolitan City Office who collects bridges displayed on a road by the defendant of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the road management agency should go through the procedure of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act unless he satisfies the requirements of Article 74(1) of the Road Act in order to remove things, etc. on the road. Even if the requirements of Article 74(1) of the Road Act were not met at the time of this case, it is illegal that a enforcement officer attempted to collect some parts of the things not displayed on the road without going through the procedure of vicarious execution under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and thus, the act by the defendant does not constitute the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and as a legitimate act, the illegality of the act against the crime of injury should be avoided as self-defense or legitimate act in a way against illegal execution of official duties.
Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 1.5 million imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles
A. The lower court’s judgment, where necessary to promptly take necessary measures to ensure road traffic and safety, and where a road management authority occupies and uses a road without obtaining permission to occupy and use the road repeatedly and habitually, may take measures, such as removal of goods stored in the road zone without following the procedure, such as an instruction under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act.
(Article 74 of the Road Act) On the grounds that there are other reasons, the Court convicted all of the facts charged of this case on the basis of the judgment.
B. According to Article 75 of the Road Act, anyone shall store obstacles on roads without any justifiable reason.