공무집행방해
1. Defendant A’s appeal is dismissed.
2. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B. ..
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant A’s act of interference with the passage of the Defendant on the one hand, and the Defendant set up against this and pushed the Defendant’s chest. Therefore, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act regarding the exercise of public authority. Nevertheless, there was an error of misapprehending the lower judgment convicting the Defendant of charges, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the lawful act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Defendant B’s arrest of flagrant offenders against Defendant B is illegal as it did not notify the doctrine, and thus, does not constitute lawful execution of public duties subject to the protection of obstruction of performance of official duties.
Therefore, even though the defendant's act of preventing the arrest of A is not a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties, the judgment of the court below convicts the defendant of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the legitimate act
B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of 5 million won, Defendant B: a fine of 3 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on Defendant A’s appeal
A. Although the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, on the grounds that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is justified. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. The Defendant’s degree of obstruction of performance of official duties does not seem to be significant.
However, in light of the circumstances at the time of the case, the defendant also could not move to the road by demonstration units or residents in order to secure access roads such as high-speed vehicles by J.