특수주거침입등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
A seized grandchild (No. 1) shall be confiscated.
A. The Defendant, at his place, acted as if he had a finger, which is an object dangerous to H, by stating that “to throw away close math, to do so, and to do so,” to another police officer H, etc. at his place.
Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers in relation to the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Each police statement made to G, F, C, and I;
1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (Evidence List 14);
1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 320, 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and Articles 144 (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with the performance of public duties carrying dangerous articles, and the choice of imprisonment);
1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;
1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act [the scope of punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court] * Type 1 (Interference with and Compelling of duties) interference with the performance of official duties (in the case of carrying dangerous articles, one year or 4 years) * The scope of final sentence in accordance with the sentencing guidelines for multiple crimes: imprisonment for at least one year (in the case of carrying dangerous articles, one year or 1 year or 4 years) / [the sentencing guidelines for special crime of intrusion upon residence are not set] / The crime of this case is determined after the defendant fastened 37 cm in the length of 37 cm at the heart of the defendant at his/her own seat and then fixing it with the string of her seat, thereby impairing the peace of residence of the victim and hindering the police officer from leaving the place of his/her seat several times, and thus hindering the police officer's performance of official duties. In light of the above, the crime of this case does not seriously interfere with the police officer's behavior.
In particular, it seems that the fear and mental shock of the victim of the intrusion on residence seems to be considerably high.
Nevertheless, the injured party.