일반교통방해등
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. According to the records of this case on April 24, 2015, the defendant appealed and filed an appeal on April 24, 2015, and on May 13, 2015, the mother of the defendant served a lawful notification of the receipt of the trial record and the notice of the appointment of a public defender on the grounds of appeal under Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the defendant did not submit the statement of grounds of appeal within 20 days, which is the submission period for the statement of grounds of appeal under Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. In addition, the petition of appeal filed by the defendant does not contain any reasons for ex officio examination,
Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 361-4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.
(1) The defendant's written statements in E, F, and D are written as part of the investigation process, but it is not admissible because there is no entry of matters necessary for confirming the progress of the investigation process. However, even if the written statements are excluded, the defendant can be found guilty of the facts charged in this case by the evidence duly admitted by the court below, and the judgment of the court below on the admissibility of evidence of each written statement does not affect the conclusion of the court below. Thus, the judgment of the court below on February 1, 2007
A. Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake 1) The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts prevents the police from arresting participants in the demonstration and moving them to an escorting vehicle, and arresting the police, which led to the sufficient obstruction of general traffic, and thus, the Defendant was acquitted of the Defendant. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of the lower court, which sentenced the lower court to the allegation of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 4 million), is too unreasonable.
B. Determination on the grounds for appeal 1.