(영문) 대구지방법원 2009. 6. 12. 선고 2008고합741 판결

1. On June 26, 2008, at around 02:58, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s head at around 30 minutes by hand on the ground that the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (Inn, 16 years of age) was “the victim does not have to go off,” which was located in ○○○ Dong-dong, Daegu Northern-gu, ○○○○ (number omitted).

2. The Defendant, at the same time and place as stated in Paragraph 1., committed an indecent act by force, by placing the said victim’s hand in his/her clothes and placing him/her in the knick, elbbbbbbbs, and committing an indecent act on his/her part.

3. The Defendant, at the same time and at the same place as Paragraph 1., expressed that Nonindicted 2, a sloped victim of the Daegu Northern District Police Station, who was called out after receiving a report of indecent act by force from the said victim and identified the circumstances of the instant case, “I want to find out the victim’s breast part of the victim’s chest,” but neglected this, the Defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties between police officers and police officers for the purpose of suppression and prevention of crimes on the ground that “I want to find the victim’s breast part of the victim’s breast part of the defendant’s chest, who was in motion, but did not have any human beings, but is in motion, but is flad with this fla, and urine, and flad with aging and promotion by taking a video image, would not be able to grow up and promote, thereby hindering the victim’s performance of duties.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Statements corresponding thereto by the accused in the first trial records;

1. Each statement fully or partially consistent with this Court by the witness, Nonindicted 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6

1. Statement corresponding to Non-Indicted 2’s statement in the second trial record

1. The description corresponding to the written arrest of a flagrant offender;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (Crime of Violence and Selection of Fine), Article 298 (Indecent Act by Indecent Act, Selection of Fine) of the Criminal Act, Article 311 (Contempt, Selection of Fine) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (Crime of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Selection of Fine)

2. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes concerning Punishment by Indecent Act by Compulsion, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Punishment by Indecent Act by Compulsion)

3. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

4. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

5. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

6. Bearing litigation costs;

Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

1. The assertion to the effect that the crime is denied;

The Defendant asserts that, at the time, the victim Nonindicted Party 1 was able to write his finger and write his head. However, there was no indecent act by assaulting the head of the above victim, her chest, tackbucks, etc., and that there was no fuck with the victim Nonindicted Party 2, the police officer called the victim, and there was no humbbbbbs, etc., and that there was no humping or assault against the victim Nonindicted Party 2.

Therefore, the above evidence and the following circumstances recognized as follows: ① The victim Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 3’s statement regarding the number of times when the victim’s head was the victim Nonindicted 1 were not somewhat unclear; however, it is difficult to see that the victim Nonindicted 1’s chest, mucks, and bucks, etc. and the victim Nonindicted 1’s investigative agency and Nonindicted 3’s testimony as a whole are consistent with the victim Nonindicted 1’s chest, mucks, and bucks, and so it is difficult to find out any motive or reason for the victim Nonindicted 1 to make a false statement without any reason; ② Defendant-friendly 6, who was at the scene of the crime, sent the victim Nonindicted 3 at this court, was unable to accept the Defendant’s statement in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by Nonindicted 3 and 4’s testimony that it was difficult for the Defendant to see that the Defendant’s statement was in accord with the victim’s witness’s statement in light of the victim’s specific and consistent manner.

2. Demanding the legality, etc. of an arrest.

The defendant asserts that the police officers, who were called before the main point of the ruling at the time, committed a crime in the form of voluntary movement according to the uniform zone, and the defendant who want to refuse to continue to proceed and return to Korea in the uniform zone did not meet the requirements for the arrest of flagrant offenders, but arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender, such as taking the lock, even though he did not notify the right to refuse to make a statement, the right to appoint a defense counsel, and the reason for arrest, so the illegal arrest constitutes illegal arrest and the evidence such as the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant prepared during the illegal arrest shall not be used as evidence illegally collected.

According to the results of Nonindicted 2 and 5 of the witness, who is the police officer called at the time, and Nonindicted 4’s statement, statement of arrest of a flagrant offender, and the written request to the National Human Rights Commission on Human Rights, which was sent to the police officer, after receiving a report prior to the above abstine point, the Defendant expressed a bath to Nonindicted 2, who was a police officer called out, and assaulted Nonindicted 2’s chest because the Defendant was recorded, and notified the Defendant that Nonindicted 5, who was called out, would arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender, and that the Defendant issued the right to appoint a defense counsel and right to refuse to make statements. The Defendant “I will directly arrest the police officer. I will leave the district register, and will leave the clothes.” The Defendant demanded the police officer to open the door by making the police officer take advantage of the fact that the police officer exercised his clothes within the district where the police officer took place, and the Defendant attempted to use the violence within the district where the police officer took place.

A false arrest is a compulsory disposition taking a suspect into custody at a certain place, such as a short-term investigation office, in order to secure the suspect's personal illness with a reason to suspect that he/she committed a crime, and may exercise force, such as locking the suspect in order to prevent the suspect from escape or to suppress resistance by such specific means. However, if the suspect moves the suspect to a place requested by the police officer in cooperation with the police officer with the knowledge of the reason for arrest, it shall be deemed that the arrest

As acknowledged earlier, the Defendant received a notice from the police officers before the above a week to the effect that he was arrested as a flagrant offender with the right to appoint a defense counsel and the right to refuse to make statements, and even if there were other reasons, the Defendant was lawfully arrested as a flagrant offender in front of the above abstinence point, as long as he was on board the patrol vehicle by himself and as between the police officers and the above abstinence area along with the police officers, even if there were no other reasons, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender only when he exercised the tangible power, such as making the police officer resisting the post-stinence and taking the checks from the

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that police officers committed any illegal act when they arrest the defendant as flagrant offender at the time. Furthermore, it cannot be said that the suspect interrogation protocol, etc. prepared during the arrest cannot be used as evidence as evidence. Thus, the defendant's assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

Judges Clinical (Presiding Judge)