The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes even though he/she had been punished twice due to violent crimes, and that the degree of interference with the performance of official duties and business interference is not less and less than that of the Defendant’s disadvantage.

On the other hand, each of the crimes in this case is an intentional contingent crime under the influence of alcohol, and the defendant has committed a crime against the defendant's depth while committing the crime, and made efforts to recover damage by deposit KRW 500,000 for the victimized police officer, etc. The court below made a smooth agreement with the victim of the crime of interference with the duty, and the victimized police officer wanted to have the victim's wife scambly scambly, the defendant is receiving treatment of alcohol addiction while he did not repeat the crime, and there is no criminal history other than the above fine, and there is no other social relation favorable to the defendants, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, health condition, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions in the arguments in this case, such as the defendant's age, behavior, family relation, and circumstances after the crime, it is judged that the punishment imposed by the court below is excessively unfair.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the part of the judgment below's conviction is reversed and it is decided as follows through pleading pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the court below which re-written the guilty portion of the judgment below] The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment (the point of interference with business).