공무집행방해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant alleged that he was guilty of the facts. The Defendant made a request to the police officer in the earth, and the police officer made a little desire to resist the demand of the Defendant, and did not assault the police officer. As such, the lower court convicted the Defendant, even though he did not constitute a crime of interference with the performance of official duties, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 1.5 million imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① Police Officers F belonging to the Busan East Police Station D District District of the Busan East Police Station, to the lower court’s court at the investigation stage, stated that “the Defendant changed the water to himself/herself, and the Defendant was unable to do so for the first time,” and did not take a bath.
In the same way, the defendant did not want to have the case returned home to E, and the defendant was followed by him.
Accordingly, the defendant has consistently stated that he was arrested as a current criminal with the obstruction of the performance of official duties by notifying the defendant of the principle of dissatisfying, and ② has been accompanied by the defendant and the earth.
E In addition, at the investigation stage, “The police officer (F) who continues to invest in the earth while the low and the defendant was faced with E”, and the defendant was asked for the case in question.
D. The term "I do not have to do so" has been sounded.
In order for the police officers to have their home home and the defendant returned to the police officers, the defendant took a bath to the above police officers, and the defendant took the back of his home while taking a bath to the above police officers, and "the defendant made a false statement", and ③ the defendant was not informed of the multilateral principles.