업무방해등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the public prosecution regarding the insult of the victim C among the charges in this case, and tried to dismiss the remainder of the facts charged in the instant case, respectively. The part of the lower judgment dismissing the public prosecution for which the prosecutor did not appeal as to only the Defendant’s conviction was dismissed was separated and finalized after the lapse of the appeal period.
Therefore, in the trial of the party, the judgment of the court below is to be judged only on the conviction part among the judgment below.
2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (3 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
3. The judgment that the defendant agreed with C as the victim of the crime of interference with the duties, and the police officer F of the victim of insult also reflects the defendant, so the defendant does not want the punishment by the police officer through the above written application, stating the contents of the request in consideration of sentencing.
As argued, the contents of the above written application are different considering the sentencing, and even according to the contents of the written application, it expressed its wish not to punish.
shall not be deemed to exist.
The fact that he prepared and prepared is favorable to the defendant.
However, even though the defendant was subject to the suspension of indictment on the charge of interference with the business of this case on September 2015, he again committed the crime of interference with the business of this case after more than one year thereafter, and by insulting the police officer dispatched while the defendant was obstructed from his business without any specific reason, the illegality of each of the crimes of this case is not somewhat weak, and other unfavorable conditions such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, occupation and environment, and motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, etc., in full view of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, the sentencing of the court below is deemed appropriate within the reasonable scope of discretion.
Therefore, it is true.