The case holding that obstruction of performance of official duties constitutes violence

The act of gathering water from the bottom of the police box office where police officers perform official duties and cutting the water on the bottom of the box office is an assault against the police officer.

Article 136 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Do561 Delivered on May 12, 1970

Defendant

Attorney (National Assembly Line)

The Army, Martial Law and High Military Court Decision 80 High Military Aviation199 delivered on November 18, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

50 days of detention shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties as stipulated in Article 136 of the Criminal Act, violence means an act of exercising a tangible power against a public official who performs official duties, and the act of assault includes direct or indirect action against a public official (see Supreme Court Decision 70Do561, May 12, 1970). In addition, it is interpreted that the method of intimidation under the same Article means a threat of harm and injury that may arouse people, but it does not include language, documents, direct, indirect, or specification, or cancer. In this case, it is interpreted that the method of intimidation is not sufficient to conclude that the defendant's act of assaulting on the floor of the police box office where the non-indicted is carrying out official duties and spreading figures, and that the defendant's act of assaulting on the floor of the office room where the non-indicted is carrying out official duties constitutes violence against the non-indicted, and that it is not proper to conclude that the defendant's act of intimidation in this case constitutes an abuse of official duties, and that it does not constitute a so-called "a legitimate execution of official duties."

2. According to the records, although the defendant's statement of grounds for appeal is stated as an act during the commission of this case, it is evident that this is not alleged as a reason for sentencing, or it is not a reason for failure to commit a crime or reduction of punishment, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the court below's failure to make a judgment on the grounds for mental disorder is an omission of judgment.

3. In this case, it is clear in light of the provisions of Article 432 of the Military Court Act, which does not constitute a legitimate ground for objection, so the theory of lawsuit on this point is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and part of the detention days in the trial shall be aggregated with each other. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)