특수공무집행방해치상등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, suspension of execution for three years) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and is in profoundly against his mistake.
The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a somewhat contingent and contingent manner due to the increase in the depression disorder, and the injury suffered by the victims did not reach the degree of serious injury.
The defendant agreed with the victims and the victims, and the victims submitted a written agreement to the court of original instance to the effect that they are not subject to the punishment of the defendants.
The defendant is an initial criminal who has no past record of criminal punishment.
However, the crime of this case is committed against the victims who are duly performing official duties in front of and next to a passenger car operated by the defendant and suffered injuries from them. Therefore, the crime of this case is not easy in light of the details, contents, and result of the crime.
In particular, if the victims continued to prevent the progress of the defendant as part of the performance of official duties, it was a very dangerous situation that may cause damage to the victims' life and body.
Furthermore, the lower court seems to have sentenced the least sentence to the Defendant within the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines, reflecting all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal.
In addition, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, considering the various circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, family relationship, personality and conduct, as indicated in the record, are considered to be unfair, even if the sentence of the lower court goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, or is too unreasonable.