Supreme Court: "Must Specifically Examine 'Justifiable Reason' When Mistaking Situation as Legitimate Act"

Acquittal for Obstruction of Official Duties Overturned and Remanded with Guilty Intent Judgment

The lower court ruling that acquitted a man of obstruction of official duties for pushing back a police officer, mistakenly believing the officer's act of pushing him was unlawful, was overturned by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that whether the man had a "justifiable reason" to believe the police officer's act was not lawful official duty should have been examined more strictly.

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

On the 16th, according to the legal community, the Supreme Court's Second Division (Presiding Justice Kwon Young-jun) overturned the lower court's acquittal ruling in the appeal trial of Mr. Lee, who was indicted for obstruction of official duties, and remanded the case to the Seoul Western District Court.

The court stated, "The appellate court's judgment, which upheld the first trial court's acquittal without specifically determining whether the defendant's mistake was justifiable, contains errors in the premise facts of the justification for illegality and misapplied the legal principles regarding 'justifiable reason' under Article 16 of the Criminal Act, which affected the judgment," explaining the reason for reversal and remand.

Article 16 of the Criminal Act (Mistake of Law) states, "An act committed under the mistaken belief that it is not punishable by law shall not be punished if the mistake is justifiable." This provision means that if a person does not recognize that an act is prohibited by law and mistakenly believes it is permitted, only when such a mistake is justifiable is the person exempt from criminal responsibility, and the crime is not established. In academia, this is commonly referred to as a "mistake of prohibition," distinguished from a "mistake of fact" under Article 15 of the Criminal Act.

Meanwhile, cases like this, where the illegality is excused?such as mistaken belief in self-defense or lawful conduct?are classified in academia as "mistake regarding the premise facts of justification for illegality."

This type falls between a "mistake of fact," which concerns the constituent facts of the offense, and a "mistake of prohibition," which concerns legal prohibition.

Typical examples include mistaking a friend or neighbor who came home late at night for a robber and using violence under the mistaken belief of self-defense, or, as in this case, mistakenly believing a public official's lawful official duty is unlawful and restraining or using violence against the official.

The Supreme Court has judged the establishment of a crime based on whether there was a justifiable reason for such mistaken belief.

Mr. Lee hailed a taxi near midnight on June 24, 2022, but when the taxi driver demanded he get off because it was a reserved taxi, Lee refused to get off and threatened to report the driver for refusal of service.

The two argued and went to the police station. The taxi driver stopped the taxi on the road in front of the Yongsan Itaewon Police Substation nearby and entered the substation to report that "it is a reserved taxi, but the passenger got on without permission and refuses to get off."

Later, Officer A (male) and Officer B (female) approached the taxi where Lee was seated, confirmed the "reserved" sign on the taxi's front, and told Lee to get off the taxi, but Lee did not comply.

When Lee said he would report the taxi driver for refusal of service, Officer B explained to Lee, "You can file a complaint about refusal of service by calling 120." Lee shouted back, "Isn't that different from what you said?" and Officer B retorted, "What's different?"

As Lee protested and approached Officer B, Officer A, standing nearby, pushed Lee to restrain him, and Lee pushed Officer A twice, asking, "Why are you pushing me?"

After a brief lull, when Officer A pulled and pushed Lee again, Lee pushed Officer A back, struggling, and then other officers arrived and subdued Lee, resolving the situation.

The prosecution judged that Lee pushed Officer A, who was lawfully performing official duties, four times in total and indicted him for obstruction of official duties.

However, the first trial court acquitted Lee. The court judged that Lee's actions were lawful acts under Article 20 of the Criminal Act and thus not illegal.

The court cited as grounds: ▲ The taxi driver's refusal of service could be directly reported to the police officers on site, so Lee's demand for Officers A and B to accept the report was not an improper act; ▲ Officers A and B concluded it was a reserved taxi based only on the "reserved" sign in front of the taxi, sent the taxi driver away, and told Lee to take another taxi home; ▲ Lee protested for a considerable time with his hands behind his back or arms crossed without using abusive language or showing aggressive behavior; ▲ Lee pushed Officer A twice after Officer A pushed him twice, as described in the indictment.

The court stated, "The defendant's act of loudly approaching Officer B and pushing his body forward appears to be an active protest against the officers' refusal to accept his report of refusal of service, and despite this, Officer A pushed the defendant strongly twice, leading the defendant to push Officer A back. These series of acts seem to be resistance against the officers' improper conduct and do not exceed socially acceptable limits."

It concluded, "Therefore, the defendant's assault is a lawful act excusing illegality, and the charge of obstruction of official duties against the defendant should not be established."

The prosecution appealed, but the second trial court upheld the first trial court's acquittal. Unlike the first trial court, the second trial court regarded this case as an example of "mistake regarding the premise facts of justification for illegality," mistaking the situation as lawful conduct.

The court first stated, "The male officer's act of pushing the defendant to restrain him, who was shouting and approaching the female officer, and the subsequent series of acts were reasonable judgments given the specific circumstances at the time."

It added, "If we isolate the male officer's acts after the lull, he grabbed and pushed the defendant's neck despite no further action from the defendant, which could be considered unlawful. However, considering the overall context, it is not unlawful. Therefore, the officers' acts cannot be deemed unlawful."

The court further stated, "From the defendant's perspective, he only protested loudly without using physical force, but when the male officer used physical force to push and pull him, the defendant resisted. There is justifiable reason to mistakenly believe the male officer's use of force was an abuse of police authority and unlawful. Therefore, the defendant's acts are excused by mistake regarding the premise facts of justification for illegality."

It concluded, "Thus, the appellate court's judgment that the obstruction of official duties charge against the defendant is not established is ultimately correct."

While the first trial court's judgment that Lee's acts were lawful and not illegal was incorrect, the conclusion that Lee was not guilty was appropriate.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed.

The court pointed out, "The appellate court judged that the defendant mistakenly believed Officer A's act of pushing him was unlawful and thus pushed Officer A, constituting a mistake regarding the premise facts of justification for illegality. However, regarding the premise facts leading to such acts, there was no mistake in the defendant's perception; only the defendant's subjective legal evaluation of Officer A's lawful official duty may have been mistaken."

It added, "Therefore, it is difficult to regard the defendant as having made a mistake regarding the premise facts of justification for illegality."

The Supreme Court noted that Lee's mistake was about whether Officer A's pushing was lawful official duty, not about the fact that the police used physical force to restrain him. In other words, there was no factual mistake involved.

The court stated, "If official duties are lawful but mistakenly believed unlawful, Article 16 of the Criminal Act applies, and punishment is only excluded if the mistake is justifiable. However, the defendant continued baseless protests despite repeated explanations from the police about refusal of service, and when Officer A restrained him to protect Officer B, the defendant immediately cursed and pushed Officer A multiple times."

It added, "The defendant's acts are also related to his intoxication at the time and his self-excitation due to baseless protests. If the defendant had not caused the mistake himself or had made reasonable efforts to avoid the mistake, this incident might not have occurred."

The court suggested that Lee's mistaken belief that Officer A's acts were unlawful was more likely due to intoxication or self-excitation during the protest, leading to a wrong judgment.

Finally, the court stated, "Even if, as the appellate court judged, the defendant had justifiable reason to mistakenly believe Officer A's acts restraining him were unlawful, this may justify the defendant's initial act of pushing Officer A but cannot justify the defendant's subsequent repeated acts of pushing Officer A and continuing to use physical force when Officer A did not use force first."

Since the Supreme Court judged that Lee's mistake was not justifiable, it is expected that the retrial will find Lee guilty of obstruction of official duties.

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