특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(운전자폭행등)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);
A. According to the evidence of the non-guilty portion, the defendant's use of violence against the driver of the vehicle in operation is recognized.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to “in the course of operation” under Article 5-10(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, thereby finding the Defendant not guilty of the part concerning the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Drivers, etc.).
B. The judgment of the court below on the sentencing is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles that sentenced the suspended sentence against disqualified persons.
2. Determination
A. Article 5-10(1) and (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”) on the determination of whether a driver in operation constitutes assault against a driver in operation is newly established for the purpose of seriously punishing drivers of automobiles in operation by assaulting or threatening them to threaten the safety of drivers, passengers, or pedestrians, thereby establishing traffic order and promoting citizens’ safety.
Examining the basis of the ordinary meaning of the language and text used in accordance with the legal principles of the interpretation of the Act, in light of the legislative intent, purpose, and legal interest as seen above, the establishment of the above crime cannot be recognized in a case where it is not anticipated that the violation of the legal interests protected by the law, such as assault against the driver who stops a vehicle without the intention of continuous operation, is not anticipated at a place where the safety
I would like to say.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4375 Decided December 11, 2008). According to the evidence revealed in the records, including the result of the examination of CCTV screen images, etc., ① the Defendant should not be able to see the victim, who is a bus driver, after being under the influence of alcohol while on board the bus.