특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(운전자폭행등)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles first, the mobile phone of the defendant was set away from the driver's seat of the taxi due to the sudden stop of the taxi, and since then, the defendant's cell phone that was returned by the defendant was left in the blue blue blus, it was in line with the snow of the victim, the defendant did not intentionally
Since the defendant was under the stop of the victim's taxi at the time of leaving a mobile phone, this case does not constitute the case of assaulting "the driver of a motor vehicle in operation" under Article 5-10 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.
The term "injury" as referred to in Article 5-10 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be such as to the extent that the victim's body may damage physiological functions. The injury inflicted on the victim in this case did not reach the degree.
The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental disorder by drinking alcohol, but the lower court neglected this.
The punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
According to the defendant's statement of the court below and the victim's statement on the part of the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the defendant's use of a mobile phone towards the victim is recognized, and even if the defendant who was in the back of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the string of the 201
Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes violence and the defendant's intention is also recognized.
Even according to the statement of the victim as to whether he was in operation, the victim is merely trying to temporarily stop to return the mobile phone to the defendant. Thus, the victim's taxi operation cannot be deemed to have been suspended.
Therefore, it is true.