공무집행방해등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The prosecutor (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) of the lower court is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.
B. The Defendant’s grandchildren (the Defendant’s grandchildren) got to the school of this case by obtaining permission to enter the school of this case with a view to spreading the scholarship house, and did not engage in the same behavior as stated in the facts charged in collusion with the Defendant, B, and A.
2. Determination
A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor at the Incheon District Court on August 8, 2013 and on June 12, 2014, which became final and conclusive on June 12, 2014, and each of the crimes in the decision of the court below is a concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a punishment should be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment by taking into account the case of concurrent judgment and equity pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.
However, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it did not deal with concurrent crimes in the application of statutes.
However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the existence of such reasons for ex officio reversal.
B. The following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts are consistent from the investigation agency to the court below, i.e., the victims: (a) during consultation with the school operation committee’s consultation office, H et al., the assistant principal of the instant school at the time of the instant case, who was in consultation with the scholarship company or school violence issues; (b) there was an interview with the victim H as stated in the facts charged by A, and the Defendant, B, and A committed assault with the victim H as stated in the facts charged.