A man in his 30s, who threatened police officers with a broken bottle while trying to stop a search warrant execution on his mother, was sentenced to prison again in the appeals court.

According to legal sources on the 20th, the 1st-3rd Criminal Appeals Division of the Suwon District Court (Chief Judge Kim Jong-geun) dismissed the appeal of the man, referred to as A, who was charged with obstructing the execution of public duty, and sentenced him to one year in prison, the same as the first trial.

On February 20, 2023, A committed his crime against police officers from the Gyeonggi Southern Provincial Police Agency who were executing a search warrant for his mother, B, who was under investigation for joint extortion, at his residence in Suwon, Gyeonggi Province.

At the time, A threatened the police officers with a broken ceramic alcohol bottle. When the police attempted to execute the search warrant again about 30 minutes later, he is accused of pushing the officers and grabbing one of them by the collar, thereby obstructing their legitimate execution of duty.

Despite claiming, "The search warrant is illegal," during the trial, A's defense argued that the police did not notify his mother in advance about the date and time of the search and did not confirm her willingness to exercise her right to participate, asserting that the execution of the search was an illegitimate execution of public duty.

A argued that this justified his actions.

However, the first trial court ruled that the execution of the search warrant fell under the circumstances of the "time requiring urgency" as stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Act, and concluded that it could not be deemed illegal for the defendant, merely residing at the execution location. Consequently, A was sentenced to one year in prison.

The appeals court also upheld the first trial ruling by dismissing A's appeal.

The court stated, "The police officers presented their identification to the defendant, identified themselves, and sufficiently showed the original warrant when attempting to execute it," and judged that the execution of public duty by the police was lawful.

Additionally, the court explained that "even if the police did not call the defendant's mother at the time of the warrant execution, considering the overall situation, the degree of violation cannot be deemed serious."

The court elaborated, "The first instance considered the circumstances of the crime of obstructing public duty, including the method, frequency, and level of violence, as well as the fact that the defendant is the child, and after comprehensively evaluating all circumstances, sentenced him to one year in prison," adding, "There has been no significant change in the circumstances affecting sentencing, and upon re-evaluating the records, it cannot be determined that the punishment was excessively severe or beyond the reasonable limits of discretion."

Image source: AI images for understanding the article / Bing Image Creator, reference photos for understanding the article / News1, reference photos for understanding the article / Gettyimagesbank