A Case of Defending Against Obstruction of Official Duties by Deceit | Acquittal of the Client on Intimidation and Other Charges Through the Assistance of a Criminal Attorney

The client was facing trial for obstruction of official duties by deceit and the crime of intimidation after posting on a university community bulletin board a message to the effect that a bomb had been installed.

Based on the time the post was made, the investigative agency traced the author's IP and secured dozens of phone numbers, then cross-checked them against enrollment at the university. As a result, the client, who was the only match, was identified as the perpetrator.

The police then arrested the client, and the crime of obstruction of official duties by deceit was thereby also established.

However, from the early stage of the police investigation, the client consistently and strongly denied ever having written the threatening post and pleaded the injustice of having been falsely accused.

The client, wrongfully involved in the case on numerous charges, then requested the assistance of a criminal attorney in order to prove innocence.

The criminal attorney determined that, although the investigative agency had narrowed the client down as the sole suspect among those who had accessed the IP at the same time, this process was based on multiple assumptions and conjectures and could hardly be regarded as reasonable.

Accordingly, the attorney closely analyzed the limitations and uncertainty of the IP and phone number materials secured by the investigative agency.

The attorney also reviewed the possibility of other persons with similar conditions having accessed the site, and emphasized that no systematic elimination had been carried out in the process of identifying the perpetrator.

The criminal attorney closely reviewed recent news and cases related to the trading of community accounts and submitted them as evidence.

On this basis, the attorney emphasized that this case had no direct connection with the university student and that the possibility that a third party had simply used an account acquired through a transaction to write the false post could not be ruled out.

The client is an ordinary university student who has no motive whatsoever to harbor any dissatisfaction or hostility toward a state institution.

Accordingly, as a result of conducting digital forensics on the client's mobile phone, the criminal attorney emphasized that only extremely ordinary daily activities, such as watching YouTube and playing mobile games, were confirmed, and that there were no circumstances suggesting that the client had planned or carried out the offense in this case.

Obstruction of official duties by deceit and the crime of intimidation are punished under the Criminal Act as follows.

As this shows, these are by no means crimes to be taken lightly, so if you become involved in such a case, you should promptly consult an attorney and prepare a response.

Level of Punishment for Obstruction of Official Duties by Deceit

Level of Punishment for the Crime of Intimidation

Daeryun Law Firm has numerous attorneys with extensive experience in criminal cases, and it thoroughly reviews the facts and forms a response strategy from the early investigation stage.

In addition, in cooperation with its evidence investigation center, the firm secures objective evidence through digital forensics, analysis of call records, and review of CCTV materials to support the client's position, and at the trial stage it mounts a strategic defense, centered on legal grounds, so as to secure an acquittal or a reduction of sentence.

If you have become involved in numerous charges in a situation such as the above, please promptly request assistance through a 🔗legal consultation reservation.