공무집행방해등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, with respect to Defendant B.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment (the fine of KRW 7 million for Defendant A; the fine of KRW 3 million for Defendant B and C) set by the court of the original instance is too unfasible and unfair.
2. The Defendants seems to have led to the confession and reflect on the crime.
The two police officers deposited KRW 500,000 in the future (the total amount of KRW 3 million) and the victims of property damage K did not want the punishment of Defendant A.
Defendant
B and C do not have the same criminal records.
However, the defendants' criminal liability is not against the law.
Examining the degree of attack performance, sustainable time, existence of insult, etc. of force exercised against police officers, the degree of interference with the performance of official duties was not minor and considerable.
① Defendant A has a number of criminal records and has been sentenced to a prison term on several occasions, and Defendant A has also been sentenced to a suspended sentence on two occasions.
Even though it has served for a long time as a serious crime of this species, it commits the crime again within the period of repeated crime between March 2013 and March 3, 2013, and has been punished by a fine due to a violation of official duties in the past.
Under these conditions, if the sentence of a fine of KRW 7 million, which is a punishment that can be sentenced to a defendant for a crime of interference with the performance of official duties without any other strong criminal record or any other strong criminal record, the sentencing is too unfluent and unfair.
It should also take into account equity with many cases of the same kind.
The sentence of imprisonment shall be valid and inevitable.
It is not a different case for the reason that a considerable time has passed from the date of crime.
② Defendant B had a number of criminal records (mainly, a person before drinking driving) and a person committing a crime of drinking driving. However, Defendant B was subject to a suspended sentence on August 2014. However, Defendant B again committed the instant crime during the grace period (up to August 2016).
However, it shall be considered that the protection observation has been complied with during the grace period.
(3)