2015Do13448 Performance of Official Duties (Preliminary Crime Name: Obstruction of Duties)

A

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 2014No2216 Decided August 12, 2015

March 24, 2016

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. First, we examine the obstruction of the performance of official duties, which is the primary charge.

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, among the charges of obstructing the performance of official duties of the changed case

Judgment of not guilty on the ground that there is no proof of crime against the non-performance obstruction portion

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower judgment was dismissed.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on "Assault against public officials" in the crime of obstruction of performance

No error was found.

2. Next, we examine the obstruction of business, which is the ancillary charge.

A. The judgment of the court below

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: The defendant who is in Gwangju around August 20, 2013 and around 14:50.

At the crosswalk prior to the operation of the gas station, the Seoul Northernbuk-gu Office E and the public service AAJ, etc., shall see the vehicle (j).

for the purpose of establishing a new construction project that would hinder the business of gas stations.

The concrete of the Borad installed at the place shall be cut off with the ludor, the ludor shall be cut off with the ludor, and the ludor shall be cut in

A police officer who has interfered with the installation of seeds in front and rear, and has been dispatched after report.

J as to the cement jums and jums set on the cement floor above, the jums and jums set up by J

Sheeted at one time, she interfered with the duties of the victim J concerning the new construction works, etc. by force of force.

This is the case.

The lower court: (a) the instant case’s new construction work constitutes the official duties of the Gwangju North-gu Office; and (b) the JJ,

AA belonging to the Jeju Northern District Office, which is not a public official, but a public official of the Gwangju Northern District Office.

Inasmuch as it is deemed that the Defendant assisted or supported the performance of his duties, the Defendant assaulted J.

(2) The crime of interference with business cannot be applied to the crime of interference with business even if the person interfered with the business.

For this reason, this part of the facts charged was determined to constitute a case that is not a crime.

B. The judgment of this Court

We cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

1) The Criminal Act separately provides for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, apart from the crime of interference with business

in the case of interference with the enforcement of a public official by means of violence, intimidation, or fraudulent means;

only the purpose of punishing a public official. Accordingly, the public official’s performance of duties should be deemed to be effective.

The crime of interference with business cannot be applied to acts that interfere with the business (Supreme Court Decision 19 November 19, 2009).

High Court en banc Decision 2009Do4166), acts that interfere with the affairs of a person other than a public official shall not be deemed to have engaged in duties.

set forth in subsection (1) of this section.

On the other hand, a private person's performance of duties entrusted by a public official has interfered with.

For the reason that the crime of interference with business is prosecuted for the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Code, "business" subject to protection.

person’s illegal act as it refers to an occupation or a continuous work or business;

It is worth protecting from infringement by an act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order Jun. 10, 2010).

2010Do935)

2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the J shall at the time engage in contractual employment AA with the Gwangju Northernbuk-gu Office E.

Since a person is employed without legal basis, he/she is a public official in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the establishment of the GJ, who is not a public official, is the affairs of the Gwangju Northernbuk-gu Office.

the official duties not "official duties performed by the public official" subject to the protection of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties;

It should be viewed that it constitutes a business of interference with business.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court did not constitute business with respect to the crime of interference with business by J.

This part of the facts charged was determined and sentenced to not guilty, and the decision of the court below is erroneous.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duties of the obstruction of interference.

3. Scope of reversal

As long as the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the conjunctive facts charged is reversed, the primary facts charged are published.

The entire judgment of the court below must be reversed.

4. Conclusion

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.

Presiding Judge Park;

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for defendant

Justices Kim Jong-il