공무집행방해
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 did not have had a police officer dispatched to the police station that was not a reason for reporting 112.
However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 2.5 million) is too unreasonable.
B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts, namely, D’s slope belonging to the Seogu Seo-gu Seo-gu Seo-gu Seo-gu Seo-gu Seo-gu Seo-gu Police Station C District Group was engaged in patrol and dispatch of a report within his jurisdiction on September 28, 2015, and around 16:05, the Defendant’s house located in Seo-gu Seo-gu Seo-gu, Seoul-gu, “the second floor glass was broken and fell into the first floor,” and the Defendant was sent to the site and sent to the site, and the report E could not be consumed far from the second floor.
Recognizing the facts stated, in light of the relevant statutes, such as the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, the Operation of the 112 General Situation Office, and the Rules on Handling Reports, this is included in the 112 Report Handling Duties, and thus, is within the scope of legitimate authority of police officers to perform their duties.
B. In full view of the following circumstances such as D and E’s statement made by A as a witness at the court of original instance, namely, the Defendant’s distance, location at the time of the commission of beer’s disease, and the fact that D could have been faced with beer’s disease if D were not avoided, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was suffering from beer’s disease toward D. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is rejected.
3. We also examine the defendant and prosecutor’s wrongful argument about sentencing.
A. The lower court committed the instant crime.