업무방해등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal
A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below rendered on the defendant is too unfasible and unfair.
B. The judgment that the Defendant recognized his mistake on the crime of interference with the instant business, and that there are favorable circumstances for the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s primary offender.
However, each of the crimes of this case was committed on the ground that the defendant was refused to request the replacement of the defendant's cell phone which was broken off, thereby obstructing the victim's mobile phone agency's business by force over approximately 30 minutes. The crime of this case was committed on the part of the police officers dispatched upon receiving a report and obstructing the victim's legitimate performance of official duties by exercising violence, and thus, the nature of the crime is very poor. Nevertheless, the defendant continued to deny the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties of this case while only his own assertion, and there is considerable doubt as to whether the behavior at the time of each of the crimes of this case was erroneous in light of the attitude of statement in this court, and there is no effort to recover damage, taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, and taking into account other circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstance and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it is deemed that the punishment of the court below is too unfair.
Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is justified.
2. As such, the prosecutor’s appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant files an appeal against the judgment below on March 29, 2018, but the records reveal that the defendant is legitimate from this court on August 24, 2018.