공용물건손상등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (4 million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. It is recognized that the Defendant made efforts to avoid re-offending, such as the confession of all crimes and reflects in depth, the Defendant’s treatment for drinking at a hospital, etc., the Defendant divorced from his wife and supports two ancillarys, and the Defendant has no criminal records since 1998.
However, the crime of this case was committed in the manner of assaulting and destroying police officers in the course of arresting the police officers who called out after receiving a report by assaulting the business owner of a singing practice room, and thus damaging police officers and walking patrol cars. Even after being brought to the district, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is very poor for the police officers to be insulting by constantly 30 minutes, and the crime was committed in the course of being investigated into the crime of this case, and the defendant was consistent with the attitude that he does not memory in the course of being investigated into the crime of this case. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties should be strictly punished in that the crime of obstruction of official duties can promote light of legal order and public authority, the criminal's age, career, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the defendant's age, career, character and behavior, and the criminal's motive, means and result of the crime, etc., it is unfair for the court below to hold the sentence of this case as it is too uneasible.
Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is justified.
3. In conclusion, 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 it is again decided as follows.
[Discied reasoning] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this court are identical to each corresponding part of the judgment of the court below. Thus, they are quoted as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act of the corresponding Article of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;