Defendant 1 and one other

User (prosecutions), official (public trial), last public trial, last public trial, last public trial, lowest public trial, subordinate public trial, and last constitutional court (public trial).

Law Firm Oyn Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Jong-won et al.

Defendant 2 (board: Defendant) shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and a year of suspension of qualification.

However, the execution of the above imprisonment for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive shall be suspended for Defendant 2 (Defendant 2).

Defendant 1 is not guilty.

A summary of the judgment against Defendant 1 shall be announced publicly.

1) (Defendant 2 (Defendant 2)

Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 2) is the commander of the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency △△△ combat police compounds (rank reduction): (a) is a person who performs the duties of arrest of the deaf at the occupation and farming site of the members of the ○○ Motor Co., Ltd. of the △○○○○○ Group of △△△△△△△, who is performing the duties of arrest

On June 26, 2009, at around 10:30, Pyeongtaek-si ( Address omitted), the above company was occupied in front of the △△△ Factory Co., Ltd., and six members of the △△○ Automobile Branch of ○○○○○ Automobile Group (Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, 4, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 7) of the above company: (a) went out of the above company; and (b) the Defendant arrested the above members of the above company when he mobilized the members of the above company, woo-gu War Police, and rap up them into a brub; and (c) the Defendant did not notify them of the reasons for arrest; (d) around that time, Nonindicted 22, the victim, the chairman of the ○○○○ District District Council, who arrived at the above site, presented a lawyer identification card to the Defendant and the members of the Defendant, and asked him to inform them of the reasons for arrest; and (e) again, the Defendant did not notify the reasons for arrest, and was stroping the above members of the above members.

At around 11:00 on June 26, 200, the Defendant notified the six members of the above union of the reason for arrest and the right to receive assistance of counsel, and arrested and delayed arrest of the members of the above association in the act of committing the crime of non-compliance with the withdrawal, and then tried to arrest the members of the above branch in the same way as the non-indicted 1 of the member of the non-indicted 1 of the government in the same way. On June 26, 2009, the victim presented his lawyer identification card to the Defendant and notified the non-indicted 1 who was arrested of his identification card to “I are the attorney, but I are the counsel? I are the counsel? I will exercise the counsel's right to contact with the non-indicted 1? I are arrested, and the Defendant prevented the victim from proceeding to the police and arrested the victim as an offender in the obstruction of the performance of official duties.

However, since the defendant did not notify the above union members of the reason for arrest even though he was arrested, the victim who is an attorney-at-law did not demand a notice of the reason for arrest of the above union members and demand a notice of the reason for arrest of the above union members, and it does not interfere with legitimate execution of official duties. Since the right of interview and communication of the counsel under Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act is an essential right to guarantee the human rights of the defendant, the suspect or the suspect, or the person under investigation and preparation for defense, the disposition of the investigative agency cannot be restricted by the court's decision, unless there is any restriction by the law, and there is no restriction at the time and place of the exercise of the counsel's right of interview and communication, except for the purpose of allowing the arrested suspect to flee or destroy evidence. Thus, the defendant should have taken measures so that the victim can meet the above union members immediately or by accompanying the police station upon the victim's above request for meeting. However, the defendant arrested the victim in the act of obstruction of official duties to arrest the victim and interfere with the victim's exercise the right of meeting by abusing authority.

1. Each part of the statement made by Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) and Defendant 1;

1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 22

1. In each protocol of the case No. 22, Defendant 2 (the Defendant), Defendant 1, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 21 in Suwon District Court Decision 201No504, respectively.

1. Each police protocol against the defendant and the non-indicted 22 or a copy thereof;

1. Written accusation and accompanying CDs;

1. Documents on the decision on application for adjudication;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 124 (Crime of Abuse of Authority and Obstruction of Exercise of Right)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments prescribed for Arrest of Abuse of Authority with Severe Punishment)

1. Selection of punishment;

The statutory penalty shall be concurrently sentenced to imprisonment and suspension of qualifications.

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Suspension of Execution of Imprisonment with prison labor in consideration of the following favorable circumstances):

1. Whether arrest procedures are lawful for the union members;

A. The assertion

The measure to restrict the movement of union members (the so-called "defensive measure") is an act that was taken to take preventive measures to prevent conflicts between labor and management, and is not immediately forced measures based on Article 6 (1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, which was taken at the stage of reaching the arrest but rather at the stage of reaching the arrest. Since the measure to restrict the movement of union members (the so-called "defensive measure"), it is a legitimate job-related act, such as checking the identification of union members and issuance of arrest warrant before

B. Determination

As long as it is evident in the record that the police officer was not in urgent circumstances, such as Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 1, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “ arrested union members”) in a situation where the police officer’s movement was restricted, the act of the police officer officer cannot be deemed as an immediate enforcement measure based on Article 6(1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, as long as it is evident in the record that the arrested union members did not attempt to commit any criminal act in the front line, or attempted to commit any harm to human life and body, or cause serious damage to property, etc.

Considering the specific form and number of police officers who were arrested by the former police officers and the number of the former police officers, the situation and form of the movement by Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4 surrounded by the former police officers, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 6’s demand for notification of the reason for arrest to the former police officers, and the attitude of the former police officers and the former police officers, time when the arrested union members are unable to move by the former police officers, and the response of the commander to the demand for notification of the reason for the arrest of the victim, it is deemed that the police officers could not move by the police officers who were arrested. However, since the members were arrested after a considerable period of time from the time of arrest (six persons, such as Nonindicted 2, etc. were 30-40 minutes per 10 minutes per 10 minutes per 10 minutes per 10 minutes per 10 minutes per 10 minutes per 10 minutes per 10 minutes per 200 minutes per 200 minutes per 310 minutes per 110 minutes per 2 reason for arrest.

2. Whether the victim is in a position to exercise the right to meet and communicate;

A. The assertion

Unless Non-Indicted 1 expressed his/her intent to obtain legal assistance from a victim, such as requesting the appointment of a counsel by the victim, the victim is merely a person who intends to voluntarily and unilaterally do so. Thus, the victim is not in a position to exercise the right to meet and communicate under Article 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of each judgment, i.e., the victims, as the chairperson of the Dogdong Labor Relations Commission of the Dogdongdong, received a public notice from the chairperson of the Dogdong Labor Relations Commission of June 22, 2009 that "on June 22, 2009, the immediately preceding victim requested the defendant to take appropriate measures so that a large amount of visitors meeting can be held promptly in the event of a large amount of visitors caused by the strike of the Dogdong Labor Relations Association's car branch". (ii) Accordingly, the victim, upon arrival at the site immediately after the non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 6 members' failure to move to the scene, raised an objection to the illegality of the arrest procedure of the above members under the premise that he/she is legally assisting the union members. (iii) After being arrested by the non-indicted 1, the victim did not have the right to request the defendant to have an interview with the non-indicted 1, the victim did not have the right to request the defendant to appoint the defense counsel."

3. Whether the exercise of the right to meet and communicate by the victim is justifiable;

A. The assertion

At the same time, since the labor union and the police police officers are extremely large, it is against the original purpose of the arrest system in order to stop the escort of Nonindicted Party 1 and to secure the personal body by carrying the arrested suspect in a certain place, and if it is permitted to meet, it is not against the original purpose of the arrest system in order to ensure the personal body by carrying him/her in a certain place, and since it is practically impossible for the defense counsel who has guaranteed the secret of interview in the police vehicle to interview and communicate, the exercise of the right to interview and communicate cannot be allowed to deviate from the limit. Therefore, the victim's act constitutes an obstruction of the performance of official duties, not an exercise of legitimate right to interview and communicate, but an obstruction

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence, the victim, despite the continued objection to the illegality of the arrest procedure, seems to have met with the members as soon as possible and necessary to accurately grasp the contents of the case and to take measures to cope with the case. ② On the other hand, Nonindicted Party 1’s communication network and union members at the time of arrest did not cause serious physical conflict between the victim and union members, it seems that there is no urgent need to immediately transfer Nonindicted Party 1 to the outside, and ③ there was no circumstance such as allowing the victim to escape or destroy evidence at the scene of the crime, and thus, it is difficult to view that the victim did not have any justifiable reason to believe that the victim did not meet the above requirements of the arrest system by allowing the victim to have an interview with the police at the time of the crime, and thus, it is difficult to view that the victim did not have any legitimate means to have the victim attend the police station meeting at the time of the crime to have an interview with the victim at the time of the crime, and thus, it is difficult to see that the victim did not have any other means to open to the victim’s statement at the scene.

4. Whether the defendant's act of abuse of authority is recognized

A. The assertion

As long as the defendant refuses to meet the victim's request under the judgment that it does not constitute an objective situation to allow meeting of the victim at the time, and evaluates the victim's act as an act obstructing arrest and communication with no purpose of meeting and arrests the victim as an offender in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties,

B. Determination

In order to establish each crime of this case, it is necessary to recognize the abuse of official authority as a public official, but it is sufficient to recognize that there is no other unlawful purpose. The following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence, namely, ① since the commencement of police service on April 1, 198, the defendant works for the police for the period of 20 years or longer, and is in charge of the duties of the field commander from July 24, 2008 to the field commander. ② The process of arresting the arrested members clearly violates the due process stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's request for the arrest of the victim is not sufficient enough to view that the defendant was in charge of the police officer's meeting and communication, and thus, there is no need to direct contact or interview the victim's body within the scope of the police officer's right to contact with the victim. ③ Even if the victim was in charge of arresting the victim, the defendant, who is the victim of the above interview and communication, without any other reason, can be seen as having been in violation of the aforementioned due process of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Although the Defendant, as a police official, has a duty to strictly observe the procedures under the law in performing his/her duties regarding the restraint of the human body, the Defendant, as well as the attorney-at-law who resisted the procedures under the Criminal Procedure Act in the process of arresting members at the stage of demonstration, was arrested the victim as a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties under the name of exercising public authority.

The defendant's act constitutes an act that damages the essence of the principle of due process prescribed by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act regardless of the legitimacy of its purpose. In light of the fact that the defendant's act is likely to cause considerable physical and mental harm to the freedom of body as well as serious damage to the reputation appraisal as an attorney-at-law while being arrested for not less than 36 hours due to the crime of this case, it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly in light of the fact that such act may cause serious harm to the people's confidence in the legitimacy of the exercise of governmental power

However, it appears that the defendant was not exercising public authority for illegal purposes, such as receiving unfair solicitation from a third party or personal interest of the defendant, and the defendant has served in good faith as police officers over the past 25 years, such as receiving official commendation, etc., and many of the defendants have applied for the preference of the defendant, and the defendant's age, career, and family relation are considered as favorable circumstances such as the defendant's age, experience, and family relation.

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1 is the chief of the investigation station at the lstal police station at the lstal knife of the members of the ○○ Motor Vehicle branch at △○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Group, who was in collusion with Defendant 2 (Defendant: Defendant 2) under his/her direction, arrested the victim Nonindicted 22 as a flagrant offender of the obstruction of performance of official duties, and arrested the victim Nonindicted 22 at the same time as indicated in the facts charged in the judgment, thereby abusing his/her official authority, and at the same time obstructing the victim from exercising his/her right to meet and communicate.

2. Determination

Defendant 1 asserts that, with respect to the arrest of six members of the above, Defendant 1 issued orders to arrest an offender in the act of committing an offense to Defendant 2 (Defendant 2). However, Defendant 1 asserted that the above arrest procedure could not be under the direction of the scene due to the non-governmental organization members, etc. who protested against the above arrest procedure, there was no fact at all participating in the process

As the actual arrest of the victim itself is apparent in the record that it was conducted by the police officer who received direct instructions from the victim 2 (defens: Defendant 1). As such, it is difficult for the prosecutor to take measures to direct and direct measures to arrest the victim (defens: Defendant 2) to find out the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the court below: ① to find out the fact of arrest of the six members detained by the defendant 2 (defens: Defendant 1) at the latest at the scene of the crime; to find out the fact that it is difficult for the prosecutor to take measures to direct measures to arrest the victim (defens: Defendant 2) or to take measures to direct measures to arrest the victim (defens: Defendant 1) without any direction from the beginning to the scene or to find out the fact that it is difficult for the prosecutor to take measures to direct measures to arrest the victim (defens: Defendant 1) without any direction from the police officer to the scene; and ② to find out the fact that it is difficult for the police officer to direct measures to arrest the victim.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the facts charged against Defendant 1 constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, it shall be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but it shall be decided as per Disposition by publicly announcing the purport of the judgment pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Lee Sang-hoon

Note 1) To the extent that the identity of the facts charged is not undermined, some of the facts charged, such as the date and time of the crime, shall be supplemented and corrected.

2) The initial Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4 were arrested first, and immediately thereafter Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, and Nonindicted 7 were arrested, and six were arrested together.