'Rail Union Arrest Obstruction' Former Jeon Gyojo Chairman Kim Jeonghun Acquitted

[Asia Economy Reporter Baek Kyunghwan] The acquittal of former National Teachers' Union Chairman Kim Jeong-hoon, who was tried on charges of obstructing police officers executing their duties during the arrest of the railway union leadership in 2013, has been finalized.

On the 27th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice No Jeong-hee) announced that it upheld the lower court's verdict acquitting Kim, who was charged with special obstruction of official duties causing injury and other offenses.

Kim was prosecuted for allegedly throwing broken glass shards at police officers who were executing an arrest warrant in front of the Kyunghyang Shinmun building in Jung-gu, Seoul, where the headquarters of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions was located, on December 22, 2013, in an attempt to prevent the execution of the arrest warrant. It was investigated that Kim threw glass shards at the police officers' faces after the entrance glass door was broken.

The prosecution sought a three-year prison sentence for Kim, but the first trial sentenced him to one year and six months in prison with a two-year probation. The court ruled that the police entry into the Kyunghyang Shinmun building to execute the arrest warrant was a lawful act based on the Criminal Procedure Act.

Regarding Kim's claim of self-defense against unlawful infringement, the court explained, "It is difficult to view the act as justifiable conduct aimed at preventing the execution of a lawfully issued arrest warrant."

However, the appellate court acquitted him. The court judged that the police's search based solely on the arrest warrant without a search warrant was not a lawful execution of official duties. This was due to Kim's side requesting a constitutional review during the appeal, targeting Article 216 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which states that "when a prosecutor or judicial police officer executes an arrest warrant, they may search a person's residence or building without a warrant."

But the Constitutional Court ruled that the provision allows searches without a warrant even when there are no urgent circumstances making it difficult to obtain a warrant beforehand, thus violating Article 16 of the Constitution's "warrant principle exception requirements."

Accordingly, the second trial court stated, "Searches based solely on an arrest warrant are permissible only in cases of urgent circumstances; otherwise, it is unconstitutional," and concluded, "Therefore, all charges against Kim, premised on lawful execution of official duties, are acquitted."

On the same day, the Supreme Court also ruled, "Although there were no urgent circumstances making it difficult to obtain a search warrant before searching the building, the police conducted the search without a warrant, which does not constitute lawful execution of official duties, and thus agreed with the lower court's decision to acquit the defendant."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.