2015Do2037 Performance of Official Duties

A person shall be appointed.

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 2014No1279 Decided January 16, 2015

April 28, 2016

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

At around 01:40 on October 8, 2013, the Defendant, in collusion with B, stopped the car at the wall of the Drick wall located in Busan Metropolitan City, and moved from B to the direction of the Drick Station, followed by B, and the Defendant was on the roof of the Drick Station by putting it off in the width of the width (4.5 cm in total) possessed by the Defendant. As a result, at the time of the Drick Station, the Defendant was at the Drick Station E, who was on duty, was able to hear the explosion of the storm and report it to the upper part, and was in line with a boundary attitude, such as sending a five-minute combat atmosphere and an information analysis protocol inside the military unit. Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties in the military unit by deceptive means in collusion with B.

2. The court below acquitted the defendant on the following grounds. (1) The defendant's act of administering a large brut to the sick's ward constitutes an attack against the duty of the military unit to protect the military unit, and thus, the boundary disease, i.e., an actual situation to cope with the boundary disease, and even if the boundary disease was unable to accurately grasp the emergency or scale of the situation, it cannot be said that there was a deceptive scheme. (2) Although this case does not constitute a five-minute combat atmosphere or an information analysis team, it cannot be said that there was a deceptive scheme. However, it is natural that the military official serving in the military unit grasps and copes with the emergency situation, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the military official committed a wrong act or disposition by having a public official go through the search at the scene of the defendant's act and his duty to strengthen the boundary service of the sick's station.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below. (1) The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means is a public official who misleads the other party as to the mistake, misunderstanding, or sites of the other party and causes a wrong act or disposition by fraudulent means using the land.

It is established in cases where specific and realistic performance of duties is hindered (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17297 decided January 28, 2016).

(2) However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant reported the situation of the large-scale bomet to the direction and control of the large-scale bomet through the emergency board and the electric wave, which led to the gathering of the large-scale bomb to the main unit, and then was on the roof of the hospital in the military unit by attaching a fire to the large-scale 40 minutes of the new wall at 1:40 minutes of the new wall. On the other hand, the wounded soldier E, who was on duty at the time of being on duty in the sick Station, was in a narrow range of "the day on which the large-scale bombomt was on the roof of the wall in the front bombus and the front bombus" outside the front bombus, and it was found that there was an emergency to witness the front bombus to the front bombus and that there was an emergency. The head of the division and the watchkeeping on duty mobilization at the site and strengthening the situation of the front.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act interfered with specific execution of duties, such as the military unit’s boundary, etc. by deceptive means, on the ground that the Defendant: (a) took the bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Justices Jo Hee-de

Justices Park Sang-ok