Busan Attorney | Busan Criminal Attorney, Client Charged With Bodily Injury and Obstruction of Official Duties Concluded With a Suspended Sentence

While the client was drinking with an acquaintance, a quarrel broke out with the customers at the next table.

It began as a simple verbal dispute, but as emotions on both sides intensified, it escalated into a physical altercation.

Enraged by the other party's provocation, the client threw a punch, which ultimately resulted in inflicting bodily injury on the other party.

As the situation grew more serious, bystanders reported it to the police, and an officer dispatched to the scene attempted to restrain the client.

The client, however, was already highly agitated and used violence against the officer who was restraining him, and a charge of obstruction of official duties was added.

In particular, the client inflicted bodily injury on the officer, resulting in a serious situation with two assault victims.

The charges applied to the client were infliction of bodily injury and obstruction of official duties.

Simple infliction of bodily injury falls under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, under which a person who inflicts bodily injury on another may be punished by imprisonment for not more than seven years, suspension of qualifications for not more than ten years, or a fine of not more than ten million won.

There are no limits on the means or methods of inflicting bodily injury, so not only direct physical force but also intangible methods, such as psychological harm caused by verbal abuse or threats and infection with a sexually transmitted disease, may all constitute bodily injury, which calls for caution.

Obstruction of official duties falls under Article 136 of the Criminal Act, under which a person who uses violence or intimidation against a public official engaged in the performance of duties may be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than ten million won.

In particular, for obstruction of official duties to be committed, an 'active act' sufficient to obstruct the lawful official duties of a public official is required.

No purpose of obstructing the performance of official duties is required, and because there is no separate provision punishing attempts, if the violence or intimidation creates an abstract risk of obstructing official duties, it is punished as a completed offense without exception, which calls for caution.

We asked the Busan criminal attorney about the issues in this case.

The client was a first-time offender with no prior convictions for the same type of offense and had generally lived as a law-abiding citizen.

The attorney emphasized that the client had used violence in a momentary outburst of emotion and that it was not planned or intended in advance.

In particular, the attorney persuasively conveyed to the court that the client, who generally has a gentle disposition, had acted impulsively while intoxicated, highlighting the low likelihood of reoffending.

At the time of the incident, the client had lost his judgment and self-control due to chronic alcohol dependence.

A medical certificate submitted by the client's attending physician stated that an alcohol-related psychiatric illness had affected the incident.

The defense submitted to the court that the client had begun professional treatment after the incident and had put in place a plan for continued treatment and management to prevent a recurrence.

The attorney also emphasized that the client recognized his own problem and showed a willingness to improve, using this as grounds for mitigation of the sentence.

After the incident, the client conveyed a sincere apology to the victim and sought reconciliation, and he actively worked toward recovery of the harm, including monetary compensation and medical expenses.

In connection with the obstruction of official duties charge as well, the client courteously apologized to the officer and asked for leniency, and the officer likewise acknowledged the client's remorse and willingness to improve.

The Busan criminal attorney strongly presented in court the client's efforts and remorseful attitude, making clear that the client had devoted himself fully to the victim's recovery.