Whether the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Aggravated Punishment of Injury is "the same or similar crime" under Article 6 (2) of the Social Protection Act (affirmative)

Since the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is established by assault or intimidation against a public official performing his duties, it is reasonable to view that the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties constitutes a crime of the same kind or similar one another in light of the records, such as the nature of the crime, the means and method of the crime, the tendency of the crime, and the type of the crime, without difference in that the act of assault or intimidation by the violence of this case, and the act of assault is an infringement on life and body.

Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

Daegu High Court Decision 82No341,82No93 delivered on May 18, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

15 days of detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the respondent for identification (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") are examined.

Examining the evidence at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below in comparison with the records, the court below's measures recognizing the facts constituting the defendant are lawful and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the argument that the above judgment of the court of first instance was denied.

Since the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties under Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act is established by assault or intimidation against a public official performing his duties, there is no difference in the act of assault or intimidation and the act of assault by violence which is the crime of this case, the act of assault, the act of assault, and the act of assault, the act of assault, and the act of bodily harm. In light of the records, it is reasonable to view that the reasons provided for in Article 6 (2) 6 of the Social Protection Act, such as the nature of the crime, the means and method of the crime, the tendency of the crime and the type of crime, etc., are the same or similar crimes, and there is no other ground for

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act and Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)