공무집행방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On May 19, 2017, the Defendant did not err by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles, at the medical department and treatment room of Gwangju Prison, when the chest part of the chest B (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) and the right knick, and on the other hand, the Defendant was at the time of the victim.
Even at the time, the victim was in uniform and did not disclose that the defendant was a public official, and there was no awareness or intent that the defendant interferes with the legitimate business of the public official.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on presumption of innocence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.
According to the records of this case, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Gwangju District Court on May 18, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 8, 2017. Thus, the Defendant’s crime and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) against the Defendant, which became final and conclusive on September 8, 2017, are in a concurrent relationship with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a punishment is determined in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously pursuant to the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the lower judgment which did not take such measures
However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined below.
3. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, namely, ① the victim was in the investigative agency’s disturbance at the medical department and clinic.
Therefore, the defendant confirmed the past medical records and later.