The apparent reason, upon historical examination, for the existence of Criminal Code, Article 139[Obstruction of Official Duties for Vindication of Human Rights] is because of the concern that police may not follow the public prosecutor's instruction for vindication of human rights, or that the public prosecutor's execution of duties for vindication of human rights may meet with interference. It needed a separate penalty clause from Article 136①[Assault or Threat in Performance of Official Duties], Article 137[Obstruction of Official Duties by Trickery], or Article 122[Dereliction of Official Duties]. Taking into consideration the nature and spirit, the benefit and protection, the characteristic of the subject of Article 139, it is apparent that "Human Rights", here means the kind that may be easily compromised by the investigation in the process of police-judicially work, namely : the freedom of a person as specified in the Article 12 of Constitution, consisting of the right not to be arrested, detained, subject to search and seizure, or interrogate excepting by due process of law, the right not to be tortured, compelled to give a statement against oneself, and the right to have an attorney. Viewing the definition of human rights as noted, it can be clearly and objectively said that "the public prosecutor's instruction for vindication of human rights" also concerns the constitutionally guaranteed rights, especially as they related to the accused, witness, and other related person. Non-compliance to the public prosecutor's instruction can possibly cause direct harm or accompany real danger to the human rights of the accused and others. It also carries the danger of normal and smooth operation of government function by interfering with the prosecutor's execution of protecting human rights. Therefore, action such as these must be met with a stringent sanction to suppress it to the extent possible, and so it is understandable enough that criminal responsibility is assigned to this non-compliance. One may observe that a decision has been made to impose strict punishment on special public official such as police who violate human rights. However, only the upper limit on punishment has been legislated, and so the court may impose an appropriate sentence at discretion. Therefore, this does not constitute excessive punishment.