Supreme Court: "City Hall Welfare Department Staff Removing Drunk Complainant Is Also Performing Official Duties"... Assault Constitutes Obstruction of Official Duties

Supreme Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul.

원본보기 아이콘

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] The Supreme Court has ruled that a public official working in the Resident Life Welfare Division at City Hall who took a drunken complainant causing a disturbance outside during a consultation attempt can be considered as performing official duties under the crime of obstruction of official duties.

Lower courts had ruled that since the officials were not responsible for security or safety management of the City Hall building, their actions did not fall under the 'lawful execution of official duties' required for obstruction of official duties, judging that the officials lacked abstract authority or did not meet legal requirements and methods for specific official duties. However, the Supreme Court overturned this judgment.

The Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) announced on the 13th that it overturned the lower court's acquittal verdict in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was charged with obstruction of official duties, and remanded the case to the Changwon District Court with a ruling of guilt.

The court stated, "The lower court's ruling that there was no proof of the crime of obstruction of official duties contains an error in the legal interpretation regarding the lawfulness of official duties, which affected the judgment."

In September 2020, Mr. A, intoxicated, visited the Resident Life Welfare Division office inside the first building of Tongyeong City Hall in Tongyeong-si, Gyeongsangnam-do.

When Mr. A caused a disturbance by playing music loudly on his mobile phone, Mr. B, a public official from the Welfare Division, asked him to lower the volume and inquired about the purpose of his visit.

Mr. A responded with abusive language such as "XX you guys need to get it right. Hey, you XX bastards, you need to get it right," continuing to cause a disturbance.

Then, another Welfare Division employee, Mr. C, tried to restrain Mr. A and take him outside the office. Mr. A grabbed and tore Mr. C's shirt, and at the back door of the first building, he grabbed the collars of Mr. B and Mr. C with both hands, shook them several times, and swung his mobile phone in his hand, striking Mr. B's cheek.

The prosecutor indicted Mr. A on charges of obstructing the lawful execution of official duties related to the integrated investigation of resident life welfare and civil complaint services by City Hall officials. Mr. A had a prior record of serving eight months imprisonment for injury and other charges from August 2018 until April 2019.

However, the first trial court acquitted Mr. A.

The crime of obstruction of official duties is established when a public official lawfully executing official duties is assaulted or threatened. The court ruled that Mr. B and Mr. C, working in the Welfare Division, did not have abstract authority to remove a drunken complainant.

The court stated, "Even if the defendant verbally abused and caused a disturbance to the officials asking about the complaint, there is no evidence that the acts of restraining and pulling the defendant by the wrist to remove him from the office fall under the abstract authority related to integrated investigation and civil complaint duties or constitute lawful execution of specific official duties meeting legal requirements and methods."

It added, "Even if the act of removing the defendant is socially acceptable, it is difficult to regard it as specific official duty execution by officials responsible for civil complaint guidance, and it should be considered a lawful act by a private individual."

The prosecution, which received an acquittal in the first trial, applied for a change of indictment in the appeal trial to add an alternative charge of assault, which the court approved.

The second trial court also found no problem with the first trial's judgment on the main charge of obstruction of official duties. However, it recognized the alternative charge of assault and fined Mr. A 2 million won.

The court explained, "The prosecution argues that the defendant's acts at the time of the incident violated the Minor Offenses Act, allowing for a citizen's arrest, and thus the acts of assault such as tearing Mr. C's shirt constitute obstruction of official duties. However, considering the testimonies of Mr. B and Mr. C, it appears they intended only to remove the defendant from the office, not to arrest him as a citizen's arrest, so it is difficult to see that they were performing duties related to citizen's arrest."

It continued, "The prosecution claims that since the two intended to remove the defendant to safely manage the office, such acts constitute specific official duties related to preventing disturbances and managing the office within the building. However, evidence shows that the two belong to the integrated investigation team of the Resident Life Welfare Division at Tongyeong City Hall, responsible for income and asset investigations related to social security benefit applications, but there is no evidence they are responsible for building security or safety management."

However, the Supreme Court reached a completely opposite conclusion from the lower courts.

First, the court cited a previous Supreme Court ruling stating, "In the crime of obstruction of official duties, 'executing duties' refers not only to when a public official is actually performing acts directly necessary for duty performance but also includes when the official is on duty for the purpose of performing duties. Depending on the nature of the duties, it may be inappropriate to separate the process of duty performance into individual parts with distinct start and end points, and it is reasonable to understand a series of acts as a continuous performance of duties."

The court noted, "Article 51 of the Local Public Officials Act stipulates that 'public officials shall perform their duties kindly and fairly as servants of all residents,' and Article 75-2 encourages proactive administration for the public interest. Article 3 of the Tongyeong City Local Public Officials Service Ordinance states that 'public officials must fulfill their responsibilities with creativity and sincerity to perform their duties democratically and efficiently.'"

It added, "Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the Act on the Handling of Civil Complaints states that 'complainants must cooperate with lawful requests from officials handling complaints and must not obstruct official duties by making unreasonable demands or delaying the processing of other complaints.'"

Considering these provisions, the court pointed out, the act of a public official from the Resident Life Welfare Division at Tongyeong City Hall attempting to consult with the defendant who visited the office by asking about the complaint, and when the defendant's abusive language and disturbance prevented normal consultation and caused obstacles to other complaint processing, taking the defendant outside the office is reasonably understood as a series of duty performance related to civil complaint guidance.

It further stated, "It is unreasonable to consider only the period from the start to the end of the consultation attempt as within the scope of official duties of the Resident Life Welfare Division officials and to exclude subsequent measures such as removing the defendant causing disturbance after the consultation attempt ended from their official duties. The defendant's acts constitute obstruction of lawful official duties by Tongyeong City Hall officials and thus fulfill the elements of the crime of obstruction of official duties."

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.