A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

2. The judgment of the Defendant is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant that he/she repeatedly committed each of the crimes of this case during the trial of the first instance court while being sentenced to a suspended sentence due to interference with the execution of official duties, and was indicted for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Egressing Vehicles) and a violation of Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving).

However, considering the fact that the defendant seems to be against the mistake, the fact that the defendant has reached an agreement with the victim E, D, and F when considering favorable circumstances, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, taking into account the equity with the case where the judgment was judged simultaneously with the crime that became final and conclusive prior to the instant case, and other sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., and the circumstances after the crime.

3. As such, the defendant'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's appeal is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts constituting the crime acknowledged by this court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for the reason of interference with the execution of official duties in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch on February 3, 2016. The defendant appealed from the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch on February 3, 2016. The defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months for the reason of interference with the execution of official duties in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch on February 3, 2016. The defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months for the defendant. The prosecutor’s appeal on December 13, 2016 was dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the 21st of the same month.

In addition to the phrase "for the purpose of application," it is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Criminal facts;