Innocent Complainant in 1st and 2nd Trials... Supreme Court Sentences 1 Year for 'Obstruction of Official Duties'

1st and 2nd Trials "Not Responsible for Building Security and Safety Management... Not Lawful Duty Execution"
Supreme Court "Encompasses Series of Duties Related to Civil Complaint Guidance"

The Supreme Court has ruled that a public official removing a drunken complainant causing a disturbance and taking them outside constitutes a legitimate execution of official duties.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yusuk) announced on the 22nd that it upheld the lower court's sentence of one year imprisonment in the final appeal trial of Mr. A, who was indicted for obstruction of official duties.

Mr. A, who had a prior record of imprisonment for injury, entered the Tongyeong City Hall Resident Life Welfare Department office in a drunken state in September 2020, causing a disturbance by playing music loudly on his mobile phone. In response, a city hall employee asked him to lower the volume and inquired about the reason for his visit.

Mr. A then shouted, "XX you guys need to get it right. Hey, you XX guys, XXXX, you need to get it right," continuing to cause a disturbance. When the employees tried to restrain Mr. A and escort him out of the office, he grabbed and tore the employee's shirt, and outside the building, he grabbed the employee by the collar, shook him, and swung his mobile phone in his hand, striking the employee's cheek.

The prosecution charged Mr. A with obstruction of official duties, alleging that he interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties related to the integrated investigation of residents' welfare and civil complaint services by city hall officials.

The lower court acquitted Mr. A of obstruction of official duties, reasoning that the officials involved were not responsible for building security or safety management, and therefore the "lawful execution of official duties," a requirement for obstruction of official duties, was not recognized. For obstruction of official duties to be established, violence or threats must be directed at a public official executing their duties.

The appellate court accepted the prosecution's request to add assault charges and found Mr. A guilty of assault, sentencing him to a fine of 2 million won.

However, the Supreme Court's ruling differed. The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu), which handled the final appeal, judged that the actions of the city hall officials who tried to restrain Mr. A could be seen as part of a series of official duties related to civil complaint services. It overturned the appellate court's ruling and remanded the case, affirming the guilt for obstruction of official duties.

The appellate court's view that the scope of official duties related to civil complaints only covered the period from the moment the officials attempted to consult with the complainant until the consultation ended was deemed inappropriate.

First, the court cited past Supreme Court precedents, stating, "In obstruction of official duties, 'executing duties' does not only refer to the time when a public official is actually performing acts directly necessary for duty execution, but also includes the time when the official is on duty for the purpose of performing their duties. Depending on the nature of the duties, it is inappropriate to individually separate the process of duty execution into partial starts and ends; rather, it is reasonable to view various acts as a series of duty execution."

The court further stated, "Due to Mr. A's abusive language and disturbance, normal civil complaint consultations could not be conducted, and other civil complaint processing was hindered. As the situation persisted, the act of escorting the defendant outside the office should be comprehensively understood as part of a series of official duties related to civil complaint guidance."

The remand trial ruled, "Even if the public official used some physical force, such as grabbing Mr. A's arm while escorting him out, it was merely a socially reasonable method to stop Mr. A's illegal behavior and cannot be seen as exceeding the scope of official authority," sentencing him to one year imprisonment. The subsequent final appeal also upheld this remand trial judgment as correct.

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