[1] Whether a judicial police officer shall present a warrant of execution issued by a prosecutor to the other party in a case where he is arrested for the execution of detention in a workhouse (affirmative), and the meaning of "when urgent arrest is required" that can be made without presenting a warrant of execution (affirmative)

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which acquitted Gap of the facts charged on the ground that Gap's execution of duties was unlawful in light of the circumstances where Gap did not notify the fact that a warrant of execution was issued in the course of recruiting the defendant during a road patrol and gave notice of the unpaid fine, and led the payment of a fine, but the defendant refused to do so, and attempted to arrest the defendant for the purpose of executing the custody in a workhouse due to the unpaid fine; and the defendant was prosecuted for interfering with the police officer's execution of official duties for arresting the delinquent prisoner by resisting Gap, the case affirming the judgment below which acquitted Gap of the facts that the warrant of execution was issued in the course of recruiting the defendant

[1] The detention in a workhouse following a fine is substantially the same as the type of imprisonment, and the provisions on the execution of a punishment are applied mutatis mutandis to such execution (Article 492 of the Criminal Procedure Act). A prosecutor, who is the executive agency of the punishment, may summon a party who is not detained, for the execution of the punishment, may issue a warrant of execution of the punishment, if the party fails to comply with the summons (Article 473 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In this case, the provisions on the detention of the defendant under Chapter 9 of Part 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the execution of the warrant of execution of the punishment (Article 475 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, in order for a judicial police officer to be arrested for the execution of the detention in a workhouse, the warrant of execution of the punishment issued by the prosecutor shall be presented to the other party (Article 85(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and the other party may not be deemed to have been issued with the reason for the execution of the warrant of execution of the punishment and may not be deemed to have been lawfully executed with the other party who notified the execution of the warrant of the warrant of the punishment without prison.

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which acquitted the Defendant of the charges on the ground that, in case where the police officer Gap was already issued a warrant of execution for the execution of the police officer's duties for the arrest of the person who was sentenced to the fine, but the police officer Gap was issued a warrant of execution for the execution of the final fine for the purpose of arresting the person who was sentenced to the fine due to the default of the fine, and led the Defendant to pay the fine, but the Defendant refused to do so, and the Defendant attempted to arrest the person in charge for the execution of the custody of the station room due to the default of the fine, but the Defendant resisted Gap's chest on several occasions, and was prosecuted for obstructing the execution of the police officer's duties for the arrest of the person who was sentenced to the fine due to the delinquency of the fine, in light of the circumstances where Gap did not notify

[1] Article 136 of the Criminal Act; Articles 85(1) and (3), 473, 475, and 492 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 85(1) and (3), 325, 473, 475, and 492 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2010Do8591 Decided October 14, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 2132), Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2349 Decided September 12, 2013 (Gong2013Ha, 1858)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Law Firm (LLC) LLC, Attorneys Yang Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Suwon District Court Decision 2016No3504 decided June 2, 2017

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties under Article 136 of the Criminal Act is established only when the performance of official duties is legitimate. Even if a public official commits assault or intimidation against a public official performing a duty lacking legitimacy, it cannot be said that such act constitutes the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties. In such a case, lawful performance of official duties refers to a case where such act is not only within the abstract authority of a public official, but also meets the legal requirements and methods for specific performance of official duties (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7514 Decided April 28, 201).

Article 492 of the Criminal Procedure Act applies mutatis mutandis to the detention in a workhouse in accordance with a fine (Article 492 of the Criminal Procedure Act). A prosecutor, who is an enforcement agency of a sentence, may summon a party who has not been detained, for the execution of the sentence. However, if the party fails to comply with the summons, the provisions on the detention of the defendant as prescribed in Chapter 9 of Part I of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the execution of the warrant (Article 475 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, if a judicial police officer intends to arrest the other party for the execution of the detention in a workhouse, he/she shall present the warrant of execution issued by the public prosecutor to the other party (Article 85(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 2010Do8591 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall also apply mutatis mutandis to the execution of the warrant of execution of a fine; Article 473 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall also apply to the case where the other party fails to carry the warrant of execution of a warrant of execution of a warrant of execution of a fine.

2. The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted Defendant 1 of the charges of obstruction of the performance of official duties on the ground that the police officer's execution of duties as above was unlawful, on the ground that the warrant of execution was already issued for the execution of a final and conclusive fine against Defendant 1, the police officer assigned to the ○○ Police Station, and the police officer assigned to the ○○ Police Station in charge of the road patrol, notified Defendant 1 of the unpaid fine and induced Defendant 1 to pay a fine, but the police officer attempted to arrest the above Defendant for the execution of a fine as Defendant 1 refused to do so. However, the police officer did not notify Defendant 1 of the fact that the warrant of execution was issued to Defendant 1.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment and the first instance judgment maintained by the lower court in light of the relevant legal provisions and legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legality of executing a warrant of execution of punishment for the enforcement of detention of a fine delinquent

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)