[1] Whether a judicial police officer shall present a writ of execution of punishment issued by a prosecutor to the other party in a case where a judicial police officer is arrested for the execution of detention in a workhouse in accordance with a fine (affirmative)

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which acquitted a police officer of the charges of obstruction of performance of official duties in case where the police officer did not possess a writ of execution of punishment for the purpose of the custody of a workhouse, and the defendant refused to arrest and arrest the defendant and assault the police officer to refuse to arrest and arrest 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 the execution of the punishment (Article 492 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Accordingly, a public prosecutor, who is the executive agency of the punishment, may summon a party who has not been detained, for the execution of the punishment, may issue a warrant of execution of the punishment, but if the party fails to comply with the summons, it may be taken into custody (Article 473 of the same Act). In this case, the provisions on the detention of a defendant under Chapter 9 (Article 68 of the Criminal Procedure Act) 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 same Act). Accordingly, in order for a judicial police officer to take custody for the execution of the detention in a workhouse, the warrant of execution of a punishment issued by the public prosecutor shall

[2] In a case where police officers visited their dwelling places to arrest the defendant without having a warrant of execution of punishment for the purpose of attracting the defendant for the execution of detention in a workhouse with a fine, and visit their dwelling places in the form of voluntary movement, and the defendant refused to accompany and attempted to go to another place, and the defendant refused to arrest and detain the defendant, the case affirming the judgment below which acquitted the defendant of the charges of obstruction of performance of official duties on the ground that the above act of arresting and recruiting the defendant goes against the law on the execution of detention in the workhouse and does not constitute a lawful act of execution of official duties, and in such a case, it does not constitute "in need of urgency" (Article 85 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act) that can be arrested without presenting a warrant of execution of punishment (Article 85 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and this does not change even if the defendant was appointed as the person who has failed to pay the fine.

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

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3485 Decided April 12, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1186), Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4731 Decided October 28, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6088 Decided October 12, 2007

Defendant

Prosecutor

Ulsan District Court Decision 2009No1385 decided June 25, 2010

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The instant case concerns the following facts:

In order to execute a sentence to attract the Defendant to a workhouse in accordance with the fine imposed on the Defendant, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 of the Ulsannam Police Station, the police officer, and Nonindicted 2 called the place where the Defendant was living in Ulsan-gu (hereinafter omitted) without a warrant of execution. Nonindicted 1 left the patrol team and notified Nonindicted 2 of his failure to pay the fine to the Defendant, and demanded accompanying. Nonindicted 1 demanded accompanying the Defendant to leave the said apartment with Nonindicted 1, who was on the first floor of the said apartment, and tried to refuse accompanying the Defendant. Nonindicted 1 tried to arrest the Defendant to the effect that he was detained for execution of the sentence. Nonindicted 1, who refused to leave the same place, and the Defendant demanded Nonindicted 1 to leave the place, and the Defendant continued to stop committing an act of execution of the sentence, and Nonindicted 1’s chest was demanded to have the Defendant interfered with the execution of the sentence of execution of the police officer’s arrest, and the Nonindicted 1’s chest was demanded to have arrived at the police officer’s meeting to prevent contact with the Defendant.

2. The detention in a workhouse following a fine is substantially the same as the punishment of a person, and the provisions on the execution of a punishment of a person shall apply mutatis mutandis to the execution of a punishment (Article 492 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Accordingly, a prosecutor, who is the executive agency of a punishment, may summon a party who has not been detained, for the execution of the punishment, may issue a warrant of execution of the punishment, but if the party fails to comply with the summons, the warrant of execution of the punishment may be issued and taken into custody (Article 473 of the same Act). In such a case, the provisions on the detention of a defendant under Chapter 9 (Article 68 of the Criminal Procedure Act) 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 same Act). Accordingly, in order for a judicial police officer to take custody for the execution of the detention in a workhouse, the warrant

However, in this case, if police officers Nonindicted 1 et al. visited the dwelling place of the defendant for the purpose of taking the defendant into custody without having a warrant of execution of punishment, and carried the defendant in the form of voluntary movement, and the defendant attempted to arrest and take the defendant into another place by refusing voluntary movement on the first floor of the apartment of this case, it goes against the law on the execution of detention in the workhouse and thus, it cannot be deemed legitimate execution of official duties.

In addition, "a case requiring urgency" that can be arrested without presenting a warrant of execution of punishment (Article 85 (3) of the same Act) refers to a case where a judicial police officer who has been duly issued a warrant of execution without sufficient time to possess the warrant of execution of punishment, etc. In such a case, the above "a case requiring urgency" cannot be deemed to be "a case requiring urgency" if a judicial police officer who has been suffering from his residence of the defendant requested voluntary behavior but refused it and attempted to leave his place. This does not change even if the defendant was assigned to a person who has been sentenced to a fine.

Therefore, the court below is just in its conclusion that it acquitted the defendant of the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties of this case, which is a requirement of assault against public officials performing legitimate official duties, although there is no inappropriate point in its reasoning's explanation, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the illegal act of recognizing facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the execution

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

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)