특수공무집행방해치상등
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years;
3. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Victim K.
1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. On February 6, 2014, at around 09:26, the summary of the charge on the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the damage and damage of property in the course of the Defendant’s occupational negligence to the victim K, the Defendant destroyed that the repair cost of KRW 783,703 following the left-hand side of the victim KNG’s Lho XG car stopped on the part of the Defendant’s car, driving the JhoxG car and driving the fire-fighting road in front of the Jhox-gu restaurant located in the Daegu-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu Seoul-gu, to the Guroke-ro, and driving it from the right-hand side of the Defendant’s car.
B. This part of the facts charged is a crime falling under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under the main sentence of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.
According to each traffic accident agreement and written application for non-prosecution of punishment (160 pages, 162-1 pages of the trial record) prepared by the victim K, the victim K may be recognized on April 30, 2015, after the public prosecution on this part was instituted, as the fact that the victim K withdraws his/her wish to punish the defendant. Thus, this part of the public prosecution should be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of non-compliance with the intention to make a mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment
On the other hand, the lower court deemed this part of the facts charged and the remainder of the facts charged as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and sentenced to a single punishment, so the entire lower judgment cannot be maintained
3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the ground of the above ex officio reversal is without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing. Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act.