공무집행방해등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In full view of facts-finding and misapprehension of legal principles (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties) 1) a police officer called to the scene after receiving four or more reports and making 12 reports, and the situation where the police officer did not seem to be the form of the defendant when the police officer arrived at the site of this case, but only one of 112 reporters identified the direction of movement of the defendant, and the police officer called to the site immediately at around 16:06, which was about 2-3 minutes after 112 reports, and the police officer led to tracking the defendant at around 16:30, which was at least 16:30, and the time and place close to the arrest after reporting the defendant, it is reasonable to see that the defendant constitutes a flagrant offender, even if not, the defendant constitutes a person after the commission of the crime. 2) Even if so, considering that the defendant was a police officer, it constitutes a quasi-flagrant offender, and thus, constitutes a crime where the defendant was in possession of stolen goods, deadly weapons, or other things.
3) In light of the above, the act of putting clothes in order to stop by tracking the defendant who escaped without the police officer’s check-up, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the execution of duties by the police officer of this case deviates from the method of questioning the police officer’s non-examination, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the execution of duties by the police officer of this case deviates from the method of questioning the police officer’s non-examination. In full view of the above, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the execution of duties by the police officer of this case
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) should be too unfasible and unfair, on the ground that the portion of the obstruction of performance of official duties, on which the acquittal of an unreasonable sentencing was pronounced, is reversed.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged