beta
Text
Defendant
A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) In the process of suppressing the police officers, the Defendant 1 was shickly bucked with pain, and there was no intentional assault by the police officer’s buckbucks. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unfair sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (unfair form of punishment) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (a fine of KRW 5 million for Defendant A, Defendant B: fine of KRW 3 million) is too uneased and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Regarding the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① Police Officer G attempted to have the Defendant enjoy on the floor at the time of arresting the Defendant at investigation agency; and the Defendant stated that the Defendant committed an assault several times (Evidence Records 89 pages); ② Defendant’s act of supporting the Defendant’s dispatch of G constitutes an active exercise of force exceeding the passive resistance level against police officers who intend to arrest the Defendant; ③ Defendant was aware of some memory at the court below, but the Defendant was aware of the facts charged at the court below, and there was no special circumstance to deem that the Defendant’s statement of confession at the court below did not have any discretion and credibility. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant cannot be found to have committed an assault against Gbucks by the police officer, such as the instant facts charged, cannot be justified.
B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court as to the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A and the prosecutor, and where the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).