Suncheon Attorney Consultation | Reversal of an Imprisonment Sentence on Appeal in an Obstruction of Official Duties Case

1. Obstruction of Official Duties

A person who assaults or intimidates a public official engaged in the performance of duties may be punished by imprisonment with labor for up to five years or by a fine of up to ten million won.

The same penalty applies to a person who assaults or intimidates a public official for the purpose of compelling an official act or forcing the official to resign.

If a person obstructs the performance of official duties by displaying the power of a group or a crowd or by carrying a dangerous object, this constitutes special obstruction of official duties, and the penalty may be aggravated by up to one half of the penalty for ordinary 🔗obstruction of official duties.

If a public official is injured as a result of special obstruction of official duties, the penalty may be imprisonment for a definite term of at least three years, and if the official dies, the penalty may extend to life imprisonment.

2. Minor Offenses Act

The Minor Offenses Act sets out the types of minor offenses and the matters necessary for their punishment, with the purpose of protecting the freedom and rights of the people and contributing to the maintenance of social and public order.

The client received a sentence of imprisonment with labor at the first trial on charges of making a false 119 emergency report and then obstructing the performance of duties of firefighting officials by hurling abuse at and grabbing the collar of the firefighters who responded to the report.

The attorney argued that the client had made a deposit with an official depository of a certain amount for the recovery of the victim.

The attorney emphasized that the client had made the criminal deposit in the hope of helping, even if only modestly, to heal the victim's hurt feelings, and requested leniency.

The attorney argued that the client fully acknowledged the wrongdoing and was sincerely remorseful.

The client genuinely regrets having made a rash 119 report at the time of the incident and is resolved never again to make a careless or false report for the rest of his life.

The attorney emphasized that, unlike at the first trial, the client is now sincerely showing remorse for the wrongdoing.

At the first trial, the client was not readily able to acknowledge the wrongdoing.

Through consultation, however, the client came to recognize that his conduct at the time of the incident was a socially serious act, and he is showing remorse while resolving never to repeat the same mistake.

The attorney emphasized the client's remorseful and regretful attitude and requested leniency.