공무집행방해등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the prosecution and rendered a judgment of conviction as to the remaining facts charged.
Since the prosecutor appealed only the guilty portion, the dismissed part of the judgment of the court below was separated and finalized as it is and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of two million won) of the lower court’s penalty (e., a fine of two million won) is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.
3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.
(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is serious public power and disturbs legal order, and the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is disadvantageous to the fact that the liability for the crime of this case is not against the law and order.
However, it is more favorable to the following: (a) the Defendant was a primary offender with no criminal power; (b) the Defendant was aware of and against the Defendant’s commission of the commission of the crime; (c) the Defendant was committed against him/her; (d) the police officers who suffered from the injury wanted to commit the instant crime; (c) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime somewhat contingent and contingently; and (d) the Defendant appears to have a high possibility of improving his/her personality and conduct as a young student.
The court below determined the punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may be particularly considered in the trial.
In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is deemed reasonable, and it seems that it is unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.