2016Gohap1153 Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties

A

Isopical (prosecution), fump of use, Kim Jong-chul (public trial)

Attorney B, C (State Ship)

May 2, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a person who makes a one-person demonstration in front of the Supreme Court in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul.

On July 6, 2016, at the beginning of Seocho-gu Seoul, the Defendant 219, around 09:10, stated that “this bucks, dhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the protection of the D police officers' personal affairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M;

1. A written statement of duty and a request for personal protection;

1. A damaged photograph, on-site photograph;

1. A investigative report (CCTV image analysis) and a photograph of a CCTV to capture on the case day;

1. A CCTV CD;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 136(1) of the Criminal Code

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments imposed on the crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties against F with heavier penalty)

1. Selection of punishment;

Imprisonment Selection

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

A. It is not a legitimate execution of official duties under the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, since it does not constitute a legitimate execution of official duties in a police officer’s case where the defendant tried to enter the D car into the Supreme Court’s set, even though he did not set up a roadway to the roadway.

B. The Defendant did not have any abusive and tangible exercise such as the facts charged to F and G, and even if the Defendant was in contact with G in the process of leaving the body of G during which the Defendant was pushed down to F, he did not have any intention of assault as a natural act, even if he was in contact with F.

2. Results of the jury verdict;

○ "guilty": Seven persons (compony)

Reasons for sentencing

1. Reference to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Category 1 (Compulsory Performance of Duties)

【Specially Neither Aggravated Punishment nor Aggravated Punishment: Where the degree of violence is minor, there is no aggravated factor:

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from one month to eight months (Discretionary Zone)

2. Opinions on sentencing by jurors;

○ Six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution: At least seven persons (one full-time) shall be judged as ordered through a participatory trial according to the defendant's wishes.

The presiding judge and judges;

Judges Sung Jae-in

Judges' Index

1) Although the sentencing guidelines are not applicable in relation to F’s crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties and G’s crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties, the sentencing guidelines are indicated in reference to the scope of recommendations given in the sentencing guidelines.