Obstruction of Justice Lawyer
Obstruction of Justice Lawyer | Building a defense around the legality of the official act
Obstruction of the performance of official duties (공무집행방해죄) punishes assault or intimidation against a public official who is lawfully performing their duties (Criminal Act Article 136). The key word is "lawfully" — if the official's act itself was procedurally defective, excessive, or outside their authority, the charge can fail even if you pushed, shoved, or shouted at them. This is why obstruction cases are rarely about denying the physical act and almost always about disputing whether the official conduct that preceded it was actually lawful.
Obstruction of Justice | Why the legality of the official act decides the case
Obstruction of justice is a crime defined by the lawfulness of the underlying official act. Korean courts have repeatedly held that an officer's duty must satisfy both an abstract requirement (it falls within the officer's general authority) and a concrete requirement (the specific method and procedure used were proper) to count as "lawful performance of duty" under Article 136 of the Criminal Act (형법 제136조).
What counts as a lawful official act
An act is only protected if it is within the official's jurisdiction, the official had authority to carry it out in that specific way, and the required legal procedure was followed. For example, an arrest without a warrant that does not meet the flagrant-offender requirements under the Criminal Procedure Act (형사소송법 제211조) may not be considered lawful, which can undercut the obstruction charge tied to resisting that arrest.
Illegality of the underlying act as a defense
If the officer exceeded their authority, used excessive force, or skipped a mandatory procedural step (such as failing to properly identify themselves or explain the reason for a stop), the act may fall outside the protection of Article 136. Courts assess this objectively based on the circumstances at the time, not on what the officer subjectively believed.
Mistaken belief about lawfulness
Even where the official act was in fact lawful, a defendant's genuine and reasonable mistake about its lawfulness can be argued as a mistake of fact affecting intent, though this is fact-specific and courts scrutinize whether the belief was reasonable under the circumstances.
Obstruction of Justice | Common defense angles beyond the legality issue
Even where the official act was clearly lawful, the case can still turn on whether your conduct meets the threshold of "assault" or "intimidation," and on the specific facts of intent and degree.
Threshold of assault or intimidation
Article 136 requires assault (violence) or intimidation directed at the official, not mere non-cooperation or verbal protest. Passive resistance, refusing to answer questions, or arguing with an officer generally does not itself satisfy the elements, and the degree of physical contact or the credibility of any threat becomes a key factual dispute.
Timing: before, during, or after the duty
The obstruction must occur while the official is performing the duty, or in close connection with it. If the physical altercation happened after the official duty had already concluded, or was unrelated to the duty being performed, this timing gap can be argued to negate the charge.
Intoxication and reduced capacity
Obstruction cases frequently arise from encounters involving alcohol. Depending on the degree of intoxication, an argument for diminished capacity may be considered under the general provisions on capacity (형법 제10조), though courts apply this narrowly and it does not automatically reduce liability.
Aggravating factors: group and weapon-related obstruction
If the act was committed by a group or involved a dangerous weapon, it can be charged under aggravated obstruction of official duties (형법 제144조), which carries heavier penalties. Distinguishing whether an object was genuinely used as a weapon, or was incidental to the scene, matters for how the case is charged and negotiated.
Obstruction of Justice | From police station to case resolution
Most obstruction cases begin with a report drafted at the scene or a summons for questioning as a suspect. What you say at this stage about your understanding of the officer's conduct can shape the entire case.
Body-cam and CCTV footage, witness statements, and the official's duty log are collected to establish exactly what happened and whether the official act met the procedural requirements for lawfulness.
The prosecutor decides whether to indict, seek a summary order (약식명령), or issue a non-prosecution disposition. Arguments about the legality of the underlying official act are most effective when raised at this stage, before indictment.
If indicted, the case proceeds either as a summary fine order or a formal trial, depending on severity and any aggravating circumstances such as injury to the official or use of a weapon.
If liability is found, sentencing considers the degree of force used, whether the official act was in fact lawful, any injury caused, and whether the defendant has reconciled with the official or shown genuine remorse.
Obstruction of Justice | How defense fees are typically structured
An initial case review to assess whether the official act was lawful and to evaluate the strength of available defenses, based on the facts and evidence you can provide.
Set according to the stage of the case (pre-charge investigation, summary order, or formal trial) and the complexity of disputing the legality of the official duty involved.
Where applicable, structured around concrete outcomes such as a non-prosecution disposition or reduction from formal trial to summary proceedings, agreed upon in advance and set out in the engagement contract.
Costs such as obtaining CCTV/body-cam footage through formal requests, expert opinions if needed, and court filing fees are billed separately from the retainer.
※ Costs vary depending on case complexity and specific circumstances; exact fees will be provided during consultation. No specific outcome is guaranteed.
Obstruction of Justice | Self-Check Before Your Consultation
1️⃣ Was the official act itself lawful?
- Did the officer or public official clearly identify themselves and state the reason for the stop or action?
- Was there a valid warrant, or did the situation meet the flagrant-offender exception for a warrantless arrest?
- Did the official follow the procedure required for that type of duty (e.g., proper notice before an eviction or inspection)?
- Did the official use force or authority beyond what the situation required?
2️⃣ What actually happened physically?
- Did you make physical contact with the official, or was your resistance purely verbal or passive?
- Is there footage (CCTV, body-cam, bystander video) that captures the sequence of events?
- Were there other witnesses present who can describe what happened before the physical contact?
- Was anyone injured, and if so, how severe was the injury?
3️⃣ Timing and context
- Had the official's duty already ended when the incident occurred?
- Were you under the influence of alcohol, and if so, to what degree?
- Was the incident connected to a separate underlying dispute (e.g., a domestic dispute, business inspection, protest) that may explain your state of mind?
4️⃣ Case status right now
- Have you already been summoned for questioning, or is this at the report stage?
- Have you signed any statement, and do you have a copy of it?
- Has a summary fine order (약식명령) already been issued, and if so, has the objection period started running?
