공무집행방해등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended sentence for four months of imprisonment, two years of probation, and 80 hours of community service order) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The court below sentenced the above punishment within the scope of the sentencing guidelines recommended by the Sentencing Committee (1-8 months) by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the police officer, who received 112 report and received 112, led to obstruction of the performance of official duties by intimidation to the police officer; (b) although the victim was subject to the punishment due to the failure to punish him; (c) the police officer publicly insulting the same police officer in other cases that occurred immediately before the suspension of execution; (d) the defendant had been punished for violent crimes, including suspended execution, several times; and (e) the degree and contents of intimidation or intimidation by the defendant at the time of the crime of this case are relatively minor; (d) the defendant committed a crime by recognizing all the crimes; and (e) the police officer who suffered damage due to obstruction of the performance of official duties, committed a crime by finding the police officer who was damaged by the obstruction of the performance of official duties; and (e) there was no record of punishment for the same type of the defendant;
B. Since the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is likely to disrupt social order maintained by the public authority, it is necessary to impose strict punishment on the part of the state public authority in order to create a social atmosphere where the law and the principles are observed.
In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, the background leading to the instant crime, the form, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, there is no circumstance that the lower court’s sentencing judgment is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or that it is unreasonable to maintain it as it is, in addition to the circumstances considered by the lower court.
Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015