Defendant

A mentally ill-minded defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and the lower court erred by misapprehending this.

In light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the error of unfair sentencing and commits the instant crime in contingency under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant committed the instant crime, the degree of tangible power exercised by the police officer is minor, the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, and the economic situation is very difficult, the lower court’s sentence imposing a fine of KRW 4,50,000 is too unreasonable.

In light of the fact that the crime of this case by the prosecutor (e.g., the Defendant committed the crime of this case at the main point of view that it is not good that the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties by assaulting the police officers who were requested to produce identification cards from the police officers who were dispatched after receiving 112 reports on the disturbance at the main point, and that there is a need for strict punishment against the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties against the police officers in uniform, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the background, means and methods of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc. acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it does not seem that the Defendant was aware that drinking was at the time of the commission of the crime, but did not seem to have reached a weak state of ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that did not apply Article 10(2) of the Criminal Act to the defendant cannot be deemed to have erred that affected the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the statutes on statutory grounds for mitigation of liability.

The crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing is presented by the police officer who was dispatched to the site after receiving 112 reports on disturbance at the main point while under the influence of alcohol.