I'm looking for someone, I'm making a fuss, I'm accused of obstruction of business... Sentence suspended for 6 months in prison overturned

"I'll find someone" disturbance, obstruction of business charges... 6-month prison sentence suspended, original trial overturned

(Changwon = Yonhap News) Reporter Jeong Jong-ho = A police officer who was indicted on charges of interfering with the inn's business, such as entering an inn saying he was looking for someone and pointing a lighter at a fire alarm, was sentenced to a fine in the appeals court.

According to the legal community on the 24th, the 1st Criminal Division of the Changwon Trial Division of the Busan High Court (Judge Park Gwang-seo) overturned the lower court ruling that suspended six months in prison for Mr. A, a 50-year-old police officer who was put on trial on charges of obstruction of business, search of a building, and attempted arson of a building in Hyeonju.

Mr. A was indicted on charges of entering an inn in Jinju, Gyeongsangnam-do on September 18, 2024 to look for someone and interfering with the operation of the inn by using force, such as trying to set off a fire alarm with a lighter.

It was discovered that about 50 minutes before this incident, he had made a fuss against Mr. B, the owner of the business in his 70s, in front of the inn. He was sent home by another police officer who responded to the report and visited the inn again.

After receiving consent from Person B to look for people in the inn, Mr. A opened all the rooms on the second floor, but was unable to find anyone, so it was determined that he committed this crime with a lighter.

Mr. A's claim that there was no intention to set the arson was accepted, and the first trial court found Mr. A guilty only of obstruction of business and search of premises and ruled to postpone the sentence of six months in prison.

The first trial court ruled, "Considering that Mr. A was drunk at the time of the incident and that he had argued with Mr. B before the crime, it is difficult to say that Mr. B consented to the search of people at the inn of his own free will, and it is clear that Mr. B did not even allow the act of turning on the fire alarm to search for people."

He then explained, “The series of actions that led to the fire alarm detecting the fire after searching the inn corresponded to the ‘force’ of the crime of obstruction of business.”

Afterwards, Mr. A appealed on the grounds that the sentence was unjust because it was too heavy and that there were misjudgments, while the prosecution appealed on the grounds that the sentence was unjust because it was too light.

In the appellate trial, Mr. A again argued that he was not guilty of searching the property because he entered the inn with B's permission, and the appellate trial accepted this.

The appellate court said, "In the first trial, Mr. B stated that he came out after agreeing to check if there was anyone at the inn in order to appease the drunk Mr. A to send him home. Even after that, he (Mr. A) made a statement to the effect that he had consented," and added, "As long as this is acknowledged, it is difficult to accept that the guilty verdict for the search of the premises has been proven."

However, regarding the charge of obstruction of business, as in the original judgment, Mr. A was found guilty, believing that his actions amounted to force.

The court stated the reason for sentencing, saying, "Although Mr. A is a current police officer who is supposed to protect the citizens' legitimate performance of duties, he should be punished accordingly because he caused a disturbance and interfered with the victim's work." It also said, "We took into account the fact that he showed remorse while acknowledging some of the facts and the fact that he reached an agreement with Mr. B."