위계공무집행방해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the form of punishment) is too unreasonable in light of the following: (i) the Defendant recognized the facts of the instant crime and reflects the fact; (ii) the Defendant did not receive actual benefits by the issued welfare card; and (iii) the instant crime should be judged at the same time in relation to concurrent crimes as stated in the judgment of the first instance and the latter part of Article 37; and (iv) the punishment of the first instance is too unreasonable.
2. The instant case is a case in which the Defendant was issued with a written diagnosis of a disabled person forged through a bromoer’s name by submitting it to a public official in charge of the welfare card. In full view of the fact that the nature of the offense was poor in light of the background and method of the offense, and other various circumstances, which are conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and criminal records, the reason alleged by the
Even if the first instance sentence is too unreasonable, it does not seem that the Defendant’s sentence is too unreasonable (the Defendant was sentenced by the Seoul Central District Court on May 16, 2013 to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) at the Seoul Central District Court on November 14, 2013, but the judgment became final on November 14, 2013. However, since the previous conviction of which the judgment became final and conclusive on December 2012, which is a crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) after the final and conclusive judgment of all the criminal facts stated in the first instance judgment, it is obvious to a party member who committed the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) at the same time as the other crime of this case, even if the first instance sentence was sentenced without considering it, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant violated Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do209, Oct. 23, 209).