beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. According to the statements by witnesses of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the fact that F (hereinafter “F”) notifies the M&F of the M&F at the time of arrest may be recognized, and when F makes a determination at the time of arrest of the Defendant as a flagrant offender, there was a request from the victim for the entry of the Defendant, and even if the Defendant need to keep personal information on the police officer under the influence of alcohol despite the need for the clear suspicion of the Defendant, it was reasonable to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the situation where the Defendant did not reveal personal information on the police officer under the influence of alcohol, and it was reasonable to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender at the scene, and only the arrest of the Defendant as a flagrant offender under the control of the time was proper and reasonable, even though the arrest of F’s flagrant offender was lawful, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts
B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine) is too unjustifiable and unfair.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the first ground of determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the following facts are as follows: ① the defendant calculated the taxi fee on the ground that the taxi fee was excessive, and ② the defendant reported the 112 taxi engineer who did not get out of the taxi; ② even though the F was called out, the defendant was still aware of the defendant by the police officer because the defendant did not get out of the taxi; ③ the defendant was allowed to leave the taxi; ③ the defendant was sent back to the taxi; ④ the defendant was sent back to the taxi; ④ the defendant was refused to leave the taxi; ④ the defendant's personal information was demanded by F; ⑤ the fact that the defendant refused it; ⑤ the F was arrested as a suspicion of interference with business; ⑤ the fact that the defendant was arrested and detained by the defendant; and ② the defendant was under the proviso that the defendant was arrested.
Defendant.