공무집행방해등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant made the same assertion as the Defendant alleged in the lower court (no one who assaults or intimidates the victimJ).
The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion in the “a summary of evidence” column of the judgment.
Examining the judgment of the court below compared with the records, the judgment of the court below is justifiable.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.
2. At the time of determining the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness due to polar disorder.
The argument is asserted.
According to the records, the defendant is recognized to have been hospitalized for a long time at Seoul O Hospital and strengthen P Hospital due to stimulative disorder and received medical treatment for its symptoms.
However, in light of the background, means, and methods of each of the crimes in this case, and the background of arrest, etc., at the time of committing the crime, the defendant was in a state that the defendant lacks the ability to see the right and wrongness of things and make decisions as to whether
It does not appear.
Therefore, the defendant's mental and physical weak argument is without merit.
3. The defendant asserts that the judgment of the court below on the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing is unfair because the defendant's punishment sentenced by the court below (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, if the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015) by destroying the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance court falls within the scope of discretion, but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment because new materials for sentencing have not been submitted