공무집행방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant did not assault police officers until before the police officers want to take the wall, and there was only the fact that the police officers illegally put the wall on the wall and resisted the wall and resisted the wall while resisting the wall without notice of the domination principle.
Therefore, inasmuch as the arrest of the defendant in the act of committing an offense does not meet the requirements and does not comply with due process of law, the defendant's act of resistance does not meet the requirements for the obstruction of the execution of official duties, or the illegality should be avoided as a legitimate defense or legitimate act. However, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of all of the facts charged of this case.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of protection observation, and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below's decision that obstructed the performance of official duties in G, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, it is acknowledged that G witness G of the trial party made a statement that corresponds to the facts charged in this part of the facts charged in this case specifically and consistently from the investigation agency to the court of the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial, and the content and attitude of the statement and the CCTV part of the witness F of the trial at the trial at the bar and the CCTV on CD correspond to the above statements. In full view of the above facts, the defendant tried to take a attitude that the defendant tried to go back from the police officer G and F upon receiving a 112 report to return home from the reporter at the request of the reporter at the time, and the defendant tried to go back to the gas staff of the station at the time of the reporter at the time of several times.
According to the above facts, the police officer G and F prevented the defendant's act that is likely to cause harm to L's body is a police officer's duty execution act.