Special Obstruction

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

At around 10:30 on March 10, 2017, the Defendant participated in the 'Presidential impeachment opposition against the impeachment' held by the 'National General Vacancy Movement Headquarters' for the dismissal of the impeachment of the President on the roads in front of the fourth subway Station of the subway Station of the subway Station of 472 as the Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu Seoul.

On the same day, at around 11:21, the defendant, who was subject to impeachment decision by the Constitutional Court, tried to enter the Constitutional Court along with other participants in the assembly in conspiracy of the above assembly. However, the police, in order to protect the demonstration of violence and maintain public peace and order, installed and cut off the wall by the police bus in order to protect the defense against the above career and to enter the Constitutional Court into the police bus with a view to maintaining public peace and order, he was aware of the fact that it is inevitable to have a career by assaulting the police bus, destroying the police bus, etc., and conspiredly and indirectly with other participants in the assembly to enter the police room.

According to the above public contest, multiple participants used dangerous articles, such as hack pipe, etc. to assault a career, damage the windows, etc. of the police bus, etc., thrown away the police with hackers or other dangerous articles, and applied several wire ropes to the police bus. The Defendant participated in the public contest from 13:30 to 14:30 on the same day, and destroyed the above police bus by using a hack pipe, which is a dangerous article, by cutting the wire rope onto the C police bus, hacking the glass hold of the police bus, or going up on the police bus by using a hacker and a hackbridge, etc., and the Defendant treated the police officers such as D, etc., who continued to be in danger, with the victim 2 of the e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e.b., the e., the e.g., the e., the e., the e., the victim 2g.

Accordingly, the Defendant, along with many participants in the assembly, destroyed the repair cost of C police buses equivalent to KRW 6,113,98, such as a crime, thereby damaging public goods, and assaulting police officers who were performing official duties concerning crime prevention and maintenance of order, thereby hindering the legitimate execution of their duties, and causing bodily injury to E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of the E, D, F, and G;

1. A written statement prepared by E;

1. A report on internal investigation (attached estimates, etc.), report on internal investigation (report on information status, etc.), investigation report (Comparison between uniforms on March 10, 2017 and uniforms at the time of arrest) (Comparison between uniforms on March 10, 2017 and uniforms at the time of arrest), report on internal investigation (detailed damage details on police buses on March 10, 2017), and report on internal investigation (Attachment to a bond CD);

1. Evidentiary photographs (No. 2,4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 22, 26, and 31 No. 2,4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 22, 26, and 31 in the list of evidence);

1. A written estimate, copy of the report, statement of opinion, etc., medical expenses invoice;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 144(2) first sentence and (1), 136(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 144(1), 136(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 144(1), 136(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 141(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of damage to public goods);

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments stipulated in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for the crimes of special obstruction of performance of official duties, and for the crimes of special obstruction of performance of duties against D

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor for an alternative crime of obstruction of special performance of official duties, or damage to special public goods;

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to concurrent crimes resulting from the serious injury resulting from a special obstruction of performance of official duties (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishments of each of the above crimes)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Considering favorable circumstances among the following reasons for sentencing):

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months, but not more than 22 years and three months;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties;

(a) Determination of type: Type 1 (Bodily Injury or injury resulting from special obstruction of public duty) for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties;

(ii) the scope of recommendations: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years but not more than four years (basic areas);

B. Crimes of special obstruction of performance

1) Determination of type: Type 1 of the obstruction of performance of official duties (influence of performance of official duties).

2. Persons under special guard: Where they show the power of an organization or a large group or carry dangerous objects.

(iii) the scope of recommendations: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than four years (a) years;

(c) Damage to special goods for public use;

(i) Determination of type: Type 1 (Invalidity of Public Goods) of invalidation and destruction of public goods, committed during the obstruction of performance of official duties;

2. Persons under special guard: Where they show the power of an organization or a large group or carry dangerous objects.

(iii) the scope of recommendations: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than four years (a) years;

(d) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes;

Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and not more than seven years and not more than seven months (in addition to the imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and not more than one-third of the maximum limit of the sentence for the crime of bodily injury resulting from a special obstruction of performance of official duties (four years of imprisonment), two years of imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one-half years, and one-third of the maximum of the sentence for the crime of bodily injury resulting from a special obstruction of official duties)

3. Determination of sentence;

The following circumstances and the Defendant’s age, health, character and conduct, environment, motive and background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing as shown in the instant trial process.

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendant, along with the participants at an assembly site, damaged public goods by using dangerous articles, such as chain pipes, interfered with police officers’ legitimate performance of duties, and inflicted bodily injury upon police officers. Such acts by the Defendant are crimes that deviate from the scope of fundamental rights, such as freedom of assembly and demonstration, recognized as citizens, and are highly likely to undermine public peace and social order. Nevertheless, the Defendant has not made efforts to recover damage.

The favorable circumstances for ○○: The Defendant is aware of all of his/her criminal acts and reflects his/her mistake in depth. The Defendant did not seem to have been either a member of the conference organizer or a member of the violent demonstration, but appears to have led to the instant crime in a somewhat contingent state while attending an assembly and interesting. The degree of damage caused by the Defendant’s instant crime seems not to be relatively more severe. The Defendant is the aged, and there is no history of punishment.

Judges Man-ho

Judges Han Han-chul