공무집행방해등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below rendered against the defendant is unfair as it is too unfasible.
2. The fact that the Defendant’s power exercised by the police officers is not somewhat weak, and that the Defendant’s act of obstructing the performance of official duties by police officers in uniform requires strict punishment in order to enhance the public’s trust in the nation’s public authority is disadvantageous to the Defendant.
However, it is against the defendant's avoidance of disturbance under the influence of alcohol, and the judgment of the court below is accepted, and the fact that there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime is favorable to the defendant.
Considering the above circumstances and motive leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, the age of the Defendant, sexual conduct, family relationship, occupation, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments and records, there is no change in circumstances to determine different from the original judgment and the punishment, and the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee within the scope of sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing committee of the Supreme Court did not present a separate handling method for the ordinary concurrent crimes. Therefore, in the instant case where certain crimes constitute the ordinary concurrent crimes, it is difficult to apply the above sentencing guidelines as they are.
However, the scope of the recommended punishment on the crime of interference with the execution of official duties for which the sentencing guidelines are set among the crimes of this case (the current sentencing guidelines on the crime of interference with official duties are not applicable because the case is not prosecuted after July 1, 2015) is considered as follows.
In full view of the fact that there is no basic area (one month to one year and four months) (the person subject to special sentencing) of the basic area (one year and four months) of the interference with the performance of official duties (the scope of recommendations) and the interference with the performance of official duties, the court below’s sentence is too uneasible and unfair, and thus, the prosecutor’s allegation of the above unfair sentencing is rejected.
3. If so, the Prosecutor’s appeal is to be made.