The case holding that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties cannot be deemed as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties where an assault is committed against a traffic police officer who performs an act of lack

[1] Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 118 and 120 of the Road Traffic Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 2003No4427 Delivered on December 9, 2003

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that the defendant, who is a policeman belonging to the Seoul Nowon-gu Police Station, controlled the defendant's vehicle in violation of the signal, issued a penalty payment notice, takes the son's hand, takes a bath to continue traffic control, interferes with legitimate performance of his duties, such as assaulting 2 to 3 smuggling, and assaulting the defendant on the part of 1 to 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 3rd.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles due to a violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing.

The prosecutor asserts that the defendant's act constitutes obstruction of the performance of official duties since he did not present his driver's license despite the request for a full-time trial, and the defendant did not commit a crime under Article 117 (2) 1 of the Road Traffic Act, which is not a "offender" but under Article 118 of the Road Traffic Act, on the premise that he is an "offender". The defendant's act does not constitute obstruction of the performance of official duties since he completed a disposition of a penalty and re-drawed by the defendant for another traffic control. The defendant's act does not comply with the request for presentation of a driver's license for a disposition of notice of a full-time penalty on the ground that he is a summary trial. Thus, the defendant's act of assaulting the national passenger to start for another traffic control after completing a disposition of notice of penalty and it appears that a series of continuous acts occurred in the course of performing his official duties due to illegal completion of the national passenger's duty as mentioned above. Thus, the prosecutor's argument in the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)