beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. On December 31, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on December 31, 2016, at an apartment parking lot located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Incheon-gu, as an alternative driver and parking problem; (b) taken the face against D’s will and received a request to delete the photograph from D; and (c) failed to comply therewith; and (d) reported to 112.
Defendant assaulted the victim by taking arbitrarily the process of performing official duties, such as hearing reports from D by Police Officers F, a police officer belonging to the Daegu Northern Police Station E District, G, etc., called upon 112 report, and committing assaulting the victim, such as taking arbitrarily a cellular phone to take the process of performing official duties, such as gathering reports from D, and taking the chest of police officers F, one time, and taking the head of F, the head of the police officer, who was requested to delete video taken from F, without justifiable grounds.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties concerning the handling of 112 reported cases by police officers.
2. Determination
A. Although the assault in a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is an act of exercising the illegal tangible power against a public official, the assault is against a public official who performs his/her duties in light of its nature and must interfere with the performance of his/her duties, so if it is minor and thus the public official is not opened, it does not constitute intimidation (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9020, Mar. 16, 2007). Whether the public official is not opened or not should be determined objectively in light of the degree of assault and the situation at the time of assault, etc., rather than by a public official’s subjective appraisal.
B. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, and the result of the verification of video taken by the defendant and CCTV in the location of the occurrence of the case.
① At the time of the instant case