Why Swinging a Metal Pipe at Police Led to No Conviction: Supreme Court Draws the Line on Unlawful Entry
⚖️ Case Summary
Incident:
A man (A) swung a metal pipe at police officers who entered his home after responding to a report from his girlfriend (B), who had accused him of sexual assault.
Initial Report:
B told police she had been forced into sex by A.
Four officers arrived, interviewed B, and repeatedly called for A from outside his home with no response.
Concerned that A might harm himself, officers entered through the front door.
Inside, A brandished a metal pipe and threatened them.
Prosecution:
A was charged with special obstruction of official duties and sexual assault.
The sexual assault charge was dismissed from the first trial due to inconsistent testimony and indications B had sought money from A.
Lower Court (Trial Court):
Found A guilty of obstructing official duties.
Ruled the police entry was a lawful emergency measure under the Police Duties Execution Act, as officers could not rule out self-harm risk.
Sentence: 10 months in prison.
Appeal Court (High Court):
Overturned the conviction and found A not guilty.
Held that police entry was not a lawful execution of duties, reasoning:
B had not mentioned any self-harm risk.
The alleged sexual assault had already ended, so no imminent danger existed.
The officers appeared partly motivated to verify the alleged crime rather than to prevent harm.
Supreme Court (Final Ruling):
Upheld the acquittal.
Ruled that since the police’s entry was not a lawful act, A’s resistance could not constitute obstruction of official duty.
Stated the lower court’s reasoning was consistent with logic and legal principles.
Key Legal Principle:
Obstruction of official duties requires the officer’s action to be lawful.
If police conduct is unlawful—such as entering a home without sufficient legal or emergency basis—resisting that conduct does not amount to a criminal offense.
Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/Case-curation/211929
KLAWGURU.COM 