특수공무집행방해치상등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
However, the period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant is sufficiently proven that, at the time of committing the instant crime, the victim, who is the police officer, was able to drive a vehicle with awareness that he/she was performing his/her duties while driving his/her drinking, thereby causing injury to the victim. Therefore, the Defendant should be held liable for the crime of injury resulting from interference with the performance of special duties.
Although the court below did not recognize the defendant's intention on the obstruction of the performance of official duties and judged the defendant not guilty on the part, it should be corrected as it caused an error of fact.
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (the penalty amounting to KRW 5,00,000) is too minor.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. In the criminal trial proceedings conducted in the form of a citizen participatory trial introduced to enhance the democratic legitimacy and trust of the judiciary, the collective opinion presented to the court about the recognition of facts by a juror composed of citizens cultivated through strict selection procedures has the effect of recommendation to help the judge of the court of the fact that he/she has the right to adopt evidence and to recognize facts under the principle of substantial direct deliberation and the principle of court-oriented trial. If the verdict of innocence, which was issued by unanimous opinion as to the admission of evidence, such as the credibility of a witness's statement, is adopted in conformity with the trial of the court of the first instance, in light of the purport and spirit of the principle of substantial direct deliberation and the principle of court-oriented trial, unless sufficient and clearly opposite to it through new examination of evidence in the appellate trial, is presented (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do445, Mar. 29, 201).