특수공무집행방해치상등
1. Of the judgment below, the part against Defendant A, B, C, D, E, G, and H shall be reversed.
2. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to Defendant C’s obstruction of performance of special duties on April 18, 2013, Defendant C’s act of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, there is no room for the Defendant C to be located in the M&A regional development and office, which is the place where the crime was committed. At the time, Defendant C was on duty at work. (ii) The Defendants’ act in relation to each particular obstruction of performance of duties constitutes the process of filing a civil petition against the removal of the M&A’s illegal banner, and the means and method thereof also constitute a justifiable act.
3) With regard to Defendant A’s injury resulting from the obstruction of performance of official duties, as stated in paragraph (3) of the crime of the lower judgment, Defendant A did not inflict an injury on the above victim by breaking her blaps and tearing her clothes. Even if the above victim’s act was injured by the Defendant’s act, the above victim’s injury cannot be deemed as an injury to the crime of special obstruction of performance of official duties because it is extremely minor. (4) As to each violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion), the Defendants entered the M&A office for the purpose of filing a civil complaint against the illegal removal of banner by the M&A, and did not enter the M&A office for an illegal purpose from the beginning, and thus, the crime of intrusion of structure is not established.
5) As to the general traffic obstruction, Defendant A parked a vehicle on the roadside, there was no interference with general traffic, and there was no situation to the extent that the traffic of the vehicle, etc. is obstructed. 6) As to the damage of Defendant B’s public goods, Defendant B caused damage to Defendant B’s public goods by dividing 3-4 police officers from the escorting vehicle into chest and making it difficult for Defendant B to conceal the chest, and thus, Defendant B did not have an intention to damage public goods.
B. Even if the facts charged in the instant case are recognized as guilty, the lower court sentenced the Defendants.