공무집행방해등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The Defendant appealed on the ground that the lower court’s punishment (ten months of imprisonment, forty hours of order to complete education, one year of employment restriction order) was too unreasonable. However, each of the instant crimes was committed by the Defendant by openly obscenity, such as exposure to sexual organ on the street on two occasions. In addition, in the process of being arrested as a flagrant offender under public performance and investigation by the police station, the Defendant sprinking the police officer, sprinking it on the water cup, and then spreading it to police officers, and the crime of interfering with the performance of public duties is very inappropriate in light of the criminal history and method, etc., and the crime of interference with the performance of public duties requires strict punishment as acts that circumvent legitimate exercise of public authority and undermine the function of the State’s legal order, and in light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and changes theory, including the fact that the Defendant committed a second offense despite a large number of criminal records, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unfair on the Defendant on the ground of the reasons indicated in its reasoning.
Since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, ex officio, Article 56 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure is corrected as "Article 56 of the Act" in Article 12 of the 3th sentence of the judgment of the court below as "Article 56 of the Act."