The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers by misunderstanding the legal doctrine, a police officer may present his/her identification card when conducting a non-checked inspection. At the time of the instant case, the victim continued to present his/her identification card without presenting his/her identification card.

This is a violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the Act on the Execution of Duties by Police Officers, which provides the principle of due process and the freedom of body, and the defendant committed an act in violation of the duty of a police officer, and thus, the victim made the same speech as the facts charged

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 3(4) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers Concerning the argument of misapprehension of legal doctrine provides that a police officer shall present a certificate indicating his/her status when he/she intends to conduct a serious inspection, and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a certificate indicating his/her status stipulated in the above Act is a public official certificate of a police officer. In full view of the circumstances leading up to conducting a serious inspection, the police officer’s clothes at the time of the inspection, and whether the Defendant demanded the presentation of a public official’s certificate or identification, the reason for inspection is sufficiently known.

If seen, the identification card was not presented.

On the other hand, it cannot be deemed an illegal performance of official duties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do4029, Oct. 14, 2004; 2014Do7976, Dec. 11, 2014). Health class with respect to the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the credit card offered by the Defendant for the settlement of charges, i.e., the taxi engineer B, was stolen or lost.