beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.06.24 2016고단833

공무집행방해

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 18, 2015, at around 00:35, the Defendant, upon receipt of a report from 112 that he/she takes possession of alcohol at a bus stop in front of the Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, and that he/she takes possession of alcohol at the bus stops, the Defendant expressed that D, a police officer affiliated with the Seo-gu Police Station C District D, which is the police officer of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu Police Station C, which is the police officer under his/her event called “Yew, e.g., f., f., f., e., f., f., f., f., f., f.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted police officers and interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning handling 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment (where there are many persons to commit the same kind of crime, consideration shall be given);

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. [Scope of Recommendation] Where the degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is minor in the mitigation area (one month to eight months) of Class 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties and Compelling of Duties) (Special Mitigation) (Special Mitigation).

2. [Determination of Sentence] Disadvantageous circumstances: The crime of this case is used for violence to police officers performing official duties, and its nature is not good;

The favorable circumstances: The defendant is against his duty to make a confession of all the crimes of this case.

The perception of illegality is relatively minor because the defendant caused the crime in this case by contingently, and the means of obstructing the performance of official duties and the degree of obstructing the performance of official duties are not much important.