공무집행방해등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecution against the charge of assaulting the Daejeon District Court 2015 High Order 4133 Case, and rendered a judgment of conviction against the remainder of the facts charged, and only the Defendant appealed against the aforementioned guilty part.
Therefore, since the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below against which the prosecutor and the defendant did not appeal is finalized, it is limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing): The sentence of the lower court (an offence of each of the crimes in the Daejeon District Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Court 413: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months; two years of suspended execution; a community service order of 160 hours; and a crime of the Daejeon District Court 2016 High Court 2392 High Court : fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.
3. As to the crime of insult and obstruction of performance of official duties on November 23, 2015, the following circumstances are recognized: (a) the Defendant appears to have caused the instant crime in contingency under the influence of alcohol; (b) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (c) the Defendant reflects the mistake; (d) the Defendant paid the repair cost of the damaged public goods; (d) the Defendant deposited KRW 400,000 for the victim H; and (e) the Defendant’s act of insult and obstruction of performance of official duties on November 23, 2015, together with the offense of interference with the performance of official duties for which the judgment became final and conclusive.
However, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence due to interference with the performance of official duties of the same kind, and again commits a crime of insult and interference with the performance of official duties on November 23, 2015, and without being aware of the fact that the said judgment became final and conclusive, and committed a crime of damaging its public goods on June 25, 2016, and thus, is not good.
It is legitimate public authority even when considering the motive for the crime of this case, that the defendant had incompetence and decentralization to the police and society due to the previous incidents, such as interference with the execution of official duties.