[Mokpo Attorney Consultation] Client Who Obtained a Mokpo Attorney Consultation Secured an Acquittal for Obstruction of Official Duties by Deceit

To understand the full background of the client who came for the Mokpo attorney consultation, the Mokpo attorney conducted the consultation directly.

The client was a person serving as the responsible supervisor for a pier construction project at a construction office.

During the ground construction work, the client adopted the DCM method¹.

The DCM method is classified into the V-type and W-type methods, and the client's ground construction was designed using the W-type method.

DCM construction equipment is classified into dedicated vessels and combination vessels, and the client's ground construction was designed to use dedicated vessels and combination vessels in parallel.

Drawing together the advice of experts, including the designer and technical support engineers, the construction office issued an official document instructing the client (the responsible supervisor) and the contractor to carry out construction in accordance with the existing design documents, without any design change, in order to secure the quality of the facility.

The client, however, conspired with other workers, and although they had been notified in writing to carry out construction in accordance with the existing design documents without any design change, as described above,

they arbitrarily changed the DCM construction method and equipment to differ from the design documents, without the construction office's approval, for reasons such as shortening the construction period and reducing the construction cost, and after carrying out the work in that manner,

they conspired to obtain the construction office's completion approval by preparing and submitting completion inspection report documents as if the work had been carried out in the same manner as the existing design documents,

and they prepared a false completion inspection report as if the work had been carried out in accordance with the design documents and obtained a completion confirmation issued in the name of the head of the construction office.

In this way, the client, in conspiracy with other workers, prepared and submitted a false completion inspection report while concealing the fact that the DCM construction method had been changed,

and by such deceit obstructed the lawful performance of official duties of the construction office's public official in charge of the completion inspection regarding completion approval,

and was thereby indicted for the crime of obstruction of official duties by deceit.

_{1) DCM method: deep cement mixing method}

The Mokpo attorney consultation explains, with reference to case law, the situations in which the crime of obstruction of official duties by deceit is not established.

“If an administrative agency, such as a public agency, granted a permit or authorization by relying on grounds for the application or supporting materials submitted by the applicant that differed from the facts, without sufficiently verifying the facts,

this results from the administrative agency's insufficient review and cannot be regarded as having been caused by the applicant's deceit, so the crime of obstruction of official duties by deceit is not established.”

Reference: Supreme Court judgment, 2009

The Mokpo attorney consultation checked whether the client had intent.

The client had instead been deceived by the other workers and believed that the work had been carried out in accordance with the construction record, and judged it to be not a design change but a √minor change in working method based on the results of the test construction, and therefore did not separately record the change in the completion inspection report.

There was therefore no intent to obstruct official duties by deceit.

The Mokpo attorney consultation pointed out that the content recording the construction method and equipment is not a principal part of the completion inspection report.

Inspecting and approving content concerning the construction method and equipment, which is not a principal part of the completion inspection report, cannot be regarded as falling within the duty of completion approval, so the crime of obstruction of official duties by deceit cannot be regarded as established.

The Mokpo attorney consultation pointed out that, because the public official in charge conducted an insufficient review and lightly relied on the completion inspection report prepared by the client in granting approval, this cannot be regarded as having been caused by the client's deceit, and therefore does not constitute the crime of obstruction of official duties by deceit.

After visiting the Mokpo attorney consultation, the client, who had been acquitted in the case of obstruction of official duties by deceit, was acquitted again on the prosecutor's appeal and was thus able to clear his name conclusively.

In this way, because the crime of obstruction of official duties by deceit is a matter that should be handled differently from the ordinary crime of obstruction of official duties,

it is important to understand the matter through an attorney consultation.

If you are considering a Mokpo attorney consultation, you may visit the Daeryun Law Firm Mokpo office to obtain a consultation regarding your situation.

Daeryun Law Firm operates offices in numerous locations to make in-person consultations more convenient.

If you have been wrongly accused in a criminal case, you may seek to resolve the matter through the legal analysis of a criminal law attorney.