[SAMPLE] Statement of Grounds for Appeal – The Crime of Obstruction of Official Duties
항 소 이 유 서
STATEMENT OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
사 건
0000노0000 공무집행방해
Case No.: 0000No0000 – Obstruction of Official Duties
피 고 인
박 ○ ○
Defendant:
Park ○ ○
피고인에 대한 공무집행방해등 피고사건에 관하여 피고인은 다음과 같이 항소이유를 개진합니다.
→ With respect to the above-captioned criminal case for obstruction of official duties, Defendant hereby submits the following grounds for appeal.
다 음
Grounds
원심은 채증법칙을 위배하여 사실을 오인하고 공무집행방해죄의 법리를 오해한 피고인에 대한 공무집행방해 공소사실을 유죄로 인정한 위법이 있고, 나아가 원심이 피고인에게 선고한 형은 너무 무거워서 부당합니다.
→ The court of first instance violated the rules of evidence, misapprehended the facts, and misapplied the legal principles governing obstruction of official duties in finding Defendant guilty. Furthermore, the sentence imposed is excessively severe and unjust.
1. 원심판결의 요지
1. Summary of the Lower Court Judgment
원심은 거시한 증거들을 종합하여 피고인이 0000. 0. 0. 16:30경 서울 ○○구 ○○동 1 앞길에서 ○○구청 도시정비과 소속 공무원인 피해자 강○○(여, 24세), 동 이○○(여, 22세)이 불법주차중인 피고인 소유 서울 1무1111호 봉고승합차 전면 유리창에 과태료부과차량스티커를 부착하고 위반현장을 입증키 위해 사진기로 촬영을 하는 것을 보고 위 차에 부착된 스티커를 떼어 피해자 강○○의 입에 붙이고 사진기를 뺏으려 하며 동인의 손을 비틀고, 이어 이를 촬영하는 이○○의 사진기를 뺏기 위해 손목을 비틀고 줄을 세게 잡아당기는 등 하여 주차단속중인 위 공무원들의 정당한 직무집행을 방해하고 그로 인하여 피해자 강○○에게 전치 2주간의 우수 제3, 4지찰과상등을 동 이○○에게 전치 1주간의 좌측전박부좌상등을 각 가한 것이라는 공소사실을 모두 유죄로 인정하고 공무집행방해죄와 상해죄를 적용하고 처단하였습니다.
→ The lower court, based on the evidence presented, found Defendant guilty of the charged facts: that at approximately 16:30 on 0000. 0. 0., in front of 1 ○○-dong, ○○-gu, Seoul, Defendant observed public officials Kang ○○ (female, 24) and Lee ○○ (female, 22) of the Urban Maintenance Division of ○○ District Office attaching a parking violation sticker to the windshield of Defendant’s illegally parked Bongo van (Seoul 1무1111) and photographing the violation; Defendant removed the sticker, affixed it to Kang ○○’s mouth, attempted to seize her camera while twisting her hand, and further twisted Lee ○○’s wrist and pulled the camera strap in attempting to seize her camera, thereby obstructing the lawful performance of their duties and causing Kang ○○ injuries requiring two weeks’ treatment and Lee ○○ injuries requiring one week’s treatment. The court applied the offenses of obstruction of official duties and bodily injury.
2. 사실관계
2. Factual Background
이 사건의 사실관계는 다음과 같습니다.
→ The factual background is as follows.
[Full factual section faithfully translated, preserving structure:]
At the time of the incident, Defendant was a member of the Seoul ○○ District Council and served as campaign headquarters director for candidate Lee ○○, who had been nominated by ○○ Party for the Seoul Metropolitan Council election. The incident location was in front of the candidate’s campaign office.
The Election Commission had instructed district offices to provide convenience in parking enforcement matters for vehicles registered for election campaign purposes. However, frequent enforcement occurred in front of the campaign office. On the day before and the morning of the incident, enforcement actions had been taken. Defendant protested to the Vice District Mayor, who instructed cooperation.
Later that afternoon, Defendant temporarily parked his registered campaign vehicle in front of the office. Parking enforcement officers again issued a violation sticker, leading to a dispute with campaign staff.
After enforcement officers completed their duties and boarded their vehicle to depart, Defendant asked them to wait for the Director of Urban Maintenance. At that point, the young officers allegedly responded with insults and raised cameras toward Defendant, stating they would publish photographs in newspapers. Defendant, angered, took a sticker from a staff member and placed it on Kang ○○’s face and attempted to seize Lee ○○’s camera, during which minor injury occurred.
The indictment incorrectly states that Defendant interfered during enforcement. In fact, the dispute occurred after enforcement had concluded. Defendant had no intent to obstruct official duties but reacted emotionally to insults and provocation.
3. 증거관계
3. Evidentiary Issues
이 사건 피해자인 주차단속원 이○○, 강○○과 주차단속차량 운전사인 조○○의 원심법정에서의 증언에 의하면 모두 일치하여 그들이 사건현장에서의 주차단속업무를 종료하고 구청으로 돌아가기 위해서 주차단속차량에 승차하고 나서 피고인과의 시비가 생기게 되었던 것이라고 하고 있는데도 원심판결이 그들의 증언을 합리적인 이유없이 배척하고 그와 달리 주차단속원이 불법주차차량에 스티커를 부착하고 위반현장을 입증하기 위해 사진기로 촬영할 당시에 피고인이 주차단속원들과 시비를 벌여 그들의 주차단속업무를 방해하였다는 공소사실을 그대로 인정한 것은 채증법칙을 위배하여 사실을 오인 하므로서 판결에 영향을 미친 위법을 저질렀다는 비난을 면할 수 없을 것입니다.
→ Testimony from the alleged victims and driver consistently stated the dispute arose after completion of enforcement duties. The lower court rejected this testimony without reasonable grounds and instead accepted the prosecution’s version that interference occurred during enforcement. This constitutes a violation of evidentiary rules and a misapprehension of fact affecting the judgment.
4. 공무집행방해죄의 법리
4. Legal Principles of Obstruction of Official Duties
형법 제136조 제1항의 공무집행방해죄는 직무를 집행하는 공무원에 대하여 폭행, 협박하는 것을 구성요건으로 하고 있습니다.
→ Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act requires assault or intimidation against a public official in the execution of official duties.
따라서 공무원이 직무집행을 종료한 후 그 직무집행결과에 불만을 가지고 공무원에게 폭행 협박을 하더라도 이는 공무집행방해죄를 구성한다고 할 수 없습니다.
→ If official duties have already concluded, subsequent assault arising from dissatisfaction with the outcome does not constitute obstruction of official duties.
앞에서 본 사실관계에 의하면 … 원심이 … 공무집행방해죄의 법리를 오해하여 판결에 영향을 미쳤다고 할 것입니다.
→ As enforcement had concluded, the lower court misapplied the law, affecting the judgment.
5. 피고인의 정상
5. Mitigating Circumstances
피고인은 … 사과하고 돈 2,000,000원을 지급하고 원만히 합의하였습니다.
→ Defendant apologized and paid KRW 2,000,000, reaching settlement.
The emotional escalation arose from perceived political targeting and insulting remarks. Defendant deeply regrets his conduct.
Considering Defendant’s 8 years and 10 months of service as a police officer and his current position as a local council member, the sentence is excessively severe. Defendant respectfully requests a reduced sentence on appeal.
0. 0.
위 피고인의 변호인
변호사 ○ ○ ○
→ Dated: ______
Counsel for Defendant
Attorney ○○○
○ ○ 지 방 법 원 귀 중
→ To: ○○ District Court
KLAWGURU.COM 
Leave a comment