2019Gohap144 Special Injury resulting from obstruction of performance of official duties, and Violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving)

Violation of the Road Traffic Act

A

Isle (prosecutions), Creationle (Trial)

Law Firm Do-young

Attorney Park J-ho

April 26, 2019

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Criminal facts

1. Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

On September 22, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million by a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Central District Court on September 22, 2008, and was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 2.5 million by a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Jung-gu District Court on October 21, 201, and on September 1, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 3 million by a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court on September 1, 201.

On January 28, 2019, from around 23:10 to 23:50 on the same day, the Defendant driven a DNA-type car with the blood alcohol concentration of about 0.185% from the 60km section to the front road of the Seoul Gangnam-gu's daily 'C'-type restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and used a DNA-type car with the blood alcohol concentration of about 231 degrees from around 60km to the front road.

2. Injury resulting from special obstruction of performance;

On January 28, 2019, the Defendant: (a) discovered that the police officers belonging to the Seoul Gangnam-gu Police Station F of Seoul Gangnam-gu Police Station were under the influence of drinking driving on the roads in Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul; (b) started to flee at a sudden speed in order to avoid this; (c) the police officers assigned to the Seoul Gangnam-gu Police Station sent a broadcast to stop the Defendant’s driving vehicle while driving the vehicle; but (d) the police officers, who were assigned to the Seoul Gangnam Police Station, attempted to stop the vehicle while driving the vehicle, but went along the same lane through the Gangnam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, the acceptance of the 231-lane at the same 1-lane and narrow the lanes at the front of the 231-lane, and led to the change of the vehicle line to the direction of the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle, which is an object dangerous to the left left side of the vehicle.

As a result, the defendant assaulted a police officer who is performing official duties by carrying dangerous objects, and obstructed his legitimate performance of duties concerning the crackdown on drinking driving, and thereby, he suffered multiple lives in need of treatment for about 2 weeks from G (the age of 27).

3. No driver of any motor vehicle who has violated the Road Traffic Act shall repeatedly commit any violation of signalling, violation of the median line, violation of prohibition against change of course, etc.;

Nevertheless, from January 28, 2019 to 23:50 the same day from January 28, 2019 to the same day, the Defendant was driving a motor vehicle at the front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, Nowon-gu, for the purpose of avoiding drinking control, such as Paragraph 2, at a section of approximately 60 km of the same 231 road in front of Seoul, Nowon-gu, Seoul, and used a motor vehicle at the D Spart area to drive the motor vehicle at around 60 km to avoid drinking control.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Report on circumstantial statements of a drinking driver, investigation report (report on the circumstances of a drinking driver, telephone conversations of a witness, act in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes during the course of escape, etc.), notification of the results of the drinking driving control, patrol car damage and photographs, records of inquiries about management of a drinking-in report, medical certificate, and video recording and video recording of a patrol box;

1. Previous record: A reply to criminal records and investigation report (Attachment to a summary order related to the driving of sound);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 144(2) and (1), 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of causing interference with the performance of special duties), 148-2(1)1, 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of drinking driving, the choice of imprisonment), 151-2, 46-3 subparag. 1, 2, and 5 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of force driving, the choice of imprisonment) (the point of force driving, and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment imposed on the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act and the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the sckless driving)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes to the extent that the punishment prescribed by the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is added to the punishment for causing bodily injury resulting from a special obstruction of performance of official duties, and the punishment is added to the punishment for

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

The defendant only driven the defendant's vehicle with the intent to escape from collision with the patrol vehicle or the surrounding vehicle, and the defendant did not have the intention to interfere with the execution of official duties by assaulting the police officer who performed official duties.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it can be deemed that the police officer, who performed public duties, could shock the police officer’s patrol while performing official duties, had dolusent intent to assault the police officer, i.e., to allow the occurrence of such a result. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

○ The Defendant, without responding to the stop signal of a police officer who was under drinking control, went away from the drinking control site immediately, and was subject to the prosecution of the patrol vehicle, and was making a scambling in the section of about 60 km at a very rapid speed to comply with it. In the process, the Defendant neglected the suspension order of police officers with a siren and scambling a siren.

○ When the preceding vehicles run along the first and second lanes on the driving route, making it impossible to overtake the above vehicles, the Defendant attempted to change the lanes from the first to the second two lanes. However, between the two lanes at the time, the vehicle driving ahead of the Defendant and the patrol car driving away from the Defendant in the second two lanes at the time, the vehicle price of the vehicle was not secured.

○ A Party 1, when the Defendant entered the two lanes excessively as above, proceeded along the Defendant’s vehicle along the two lanes and the side. In that process, the collision between the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the right side 1, which led to the Defendant’s vehicle being pushed down in the direction of the first lane. In such a situation, the Defendant continued to stop or reduce the speed, without taking any measures such as changing the vehicle along the one lane, and eventually 1 heading down the right side, as indicated in the facts constituting the crime of paragraph 2 of the judgment.

○ Moreover, at the same time, the net 5, which is another patrol vehicle in the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, was string the Defendant vehicle, and the vehicle that was driven at the first lane in the front side was under way in order to assist the police officers’ attack, and thus, it seems that there is no possibility of an accident with the general vehicle even if the Defendant stops or alters the vehicle due to speed of the police officers.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for one year and six months to six years; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties;

[Determination of Punishment] Injury resulting from Obstruction of Official Duties by Special Obstruction of Official Duties (Type 1)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 2 years to 4 years of imprisonment

(b) A crime of violating the Road Traffic Act and a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act due to a sckless driving: Setting the sentencing criteria not to be applied;

(c) Scope of recommendations based on standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years (a concurrent crime with an offense for which no sentencing guidelines are set);

(d) Scope of the recommended sentences that are modified according to the sentencing guidelines: Imprisonment of two years to six years (in cases where the upper limit of the range of sentence recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the legally applicable sentencing guidelines, it shall be in accordance with the statutory applicable sentencing standards); and

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for 2 years; and

○○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendant driven at a rapid speed to avoid a lawful drinking control by a police officer, and driven a vehicle, refused to comply with the police officer’s demand by stopping the vehicle, and forced the police officer to take patrols during the process, etc., and thus, the form of the crime is very dangerous. Such a crime by the Defendant is highly likely to be subject to criticism, such as causing a traffic accident, causing serious human and material damage, or hindering traffic. Furthermore, even though the Defendant had a history of being punished for driving under the influence of alcohol on a multiple occasions, the Defendant committed the instant crime under the condition of only 0.185% alcohol concentration. Considering such unfavorable circumstances, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant for a serious penalty on his/her responsibility for the crime.

In the case of the instant crime, the Defendant recognized the charge of violation of the Road Traffic Act and the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the scambling, among the instant crimes. The degree of injury suffered by the victimized police officer seems not to be relatively significant. The Defendant’s insurance management is under way for the medical expenses of the victimized police officer due to the special obstruction of performance of official duties through the insurance purchased by the Defendant.

○ Other punishment shall be determined in consideration of all the sentencing factors specified in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the age, character and conduct, home environment, motive, means and method of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime.

The presiding judge, the Full Judge Line

Judges Kim Gin-tae

Judges Bo Dong-dong