2016 Highly 1257 Injury resulting from Special Obstruction of Official Duties, Violation of the Road Traffic Act

(B) Violation of the Road Traffic Act

A

Kim Young-ju (Public Prosecution) and Husung (Public Trial)

Law Firm B, Attorney C, D

Law Firm E, Attorneys F, G, H

February 7, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

1. Injury resulting from special obstruction of performance;

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of I Carpool.

On November 8, 2016, at around 22:31, the Defendant: (a) driven the above Kan Felon vehicle and discovered that the road front of the 57-lane 57-lane is under the distribution of Seocho-gu Seoul, and was in front of the 27-lane in the front direction while driving at the seat of Seoul High School at the front direction; (b) obstructed the central line at a rapid speed beyond the opposite lane; and (c) avoided approximately 4 and 5 km while driving the said Kan Felon vehicle at a rapid speed; and (d) avoided approximately 1 km in the above Kan Felon vehicle, but around 22:32 on the same day, it was impossible to escape any more by blocking the signaled vehicles at the fourth-lane road in front of the Seoul Sungsung Hospital, Seoul High School, as distributed in Seocho-gu, around 22:32.

At least 2:33 on the same day, the Defendant kept the patrol car 4 from the four-lanes around the road in front of the Seoul Flag, and knife the knife 5th of the patrol car, and knife knife the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.

Accordingly, the defendant used dangerous objects to interfere with the legitimate performance of duties by police officers on drinking control and suffered injuries from K.

2. Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

A. At around 18:00 on November 8, 2016, the Defendant, via a 34 km apartment in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the roads of Suwon-si, 145, Gambro 145, the Defendant, without obtaining a driver’s license, operated a car in the section of approximately 34 km from JS in 22-gil due to new distribution, or from about 22:21 on the same day, to JS in 32-gil, or to diving datum, from the 57-lane from JS in 27:21 of the same day to the 7 km road in front of the kindergarten.

나. 피고인은 2016. 11. 9. 05:10경 자동차운전면허를 받지 아니하고 서울 서초구 잠원로8길 13에 있는 하나유치원 앞 도로에서 같은 구 잠원로8길 25에 있는 래미안신 반포팰리스 상가 앞 도로까지 약 150m 구간에서 I 카니발 승합차를 운전하였다.

3. Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

On November 8, 2016, the Defendant, at around 22:31, 201, 27:57, was distributed in Seocho-gu, Seoul, to avoid drinking control as set forth in paragraph 1(a) at a section of approximately 1 km from the front of the Seoul Franchi Hospital, which is located in 222, to avoid drinking control as set forth in paragraph 1(a). On the same day, the Defendant, at around 22:33, as distributed in Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seocho-gu, 222 in front of the Seoul Franchi Hospital, engaged in a dive driving, such as: (a) to threaten or endanger others, or to cause danger and injury to traffic, by driving patrol the vehicle on the front of the 2.5 km road; and (b) at around 22:5 km from the front of the kindergarten.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of K witness K;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of L;

1. Each police statement of K and M;

1. A written statement of the occurrence of a traffic accident prepared by K and M;

1. A statement prepared by the N;

1. Report of a traffic accident (on the actual condition survey report, No. 1 list of evidence), and report of internal investigation (on the image analysis set forth in subparagraph 5 of the patrol car);

-the escape from the influence of alcohol prior to the occurrence of the instant case, No. 5 of the evidence list, the report of internal history (No. 6 of the evidence list), the police officer's scambling and launchings, the escape from the police officer's scambling, the escape from the post, the list of evidence list), the report of internal investigation (No. 7 of the evidence list), the report of internal investigation (No. 8 of the evidence list, the driver's 11 of the vehicle suspected of the second escape, the report of internal investigation (No. 13 of the evidence list), the report of internal investigation (No. 13 of the first integrated control center, the evidence list), the certificate of the driver's license (No. 17 of the evidence list), the diagnosis (No. 21 of the evidence list), the report of internal investigation (No. 41 of the police officer's scambling and the integrated vehicle list and the list of evidence list), the report of the witness's 30-20-3 of the evidence list (Evidence evidence).

1. Protocol of seizure (No. 29 of the evidence list);

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 144(2) and (1) and 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of causing interference with the performance of special duties), Article 152 subparag. 1 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of driving without a license, the choice of imprisonment), Article 151-2 and Article 46-3 subparag. 1, 2 and 5 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of forceless driving, the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to concurrent crimes resulting from the serious injury resulting from a special obstruction of performance of official duties (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishments of each of the above crimes)

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 argues that there was no intention to commit violence against a police officer who performs official duties, because the defendant thought that there was sufficient space to break out a vehicle, and that there was no intention to do so.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, under the circumstance where a police officer in charge of performing official duties requests a defendant to leave a vehicle on the left-hand side, it may shock the police officer in the event of driving the vehicle on the left-hand side, but it can be deemed that there was an incomplete intention to assault a police officer in charge of performing official duties, i.e., a police officer in charge of performing such duties. Accordingly, the

① The police officer’s access to the Defendant’s vehicle and set up windows. On the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant’s front side of the patrol car was moving, and thus, it was impossible to proceed straightly. As such, it was sufficiently anticipated that the police officer on the left side of the vehicle would shock if driving the vehicle at a rapid speed.

② In this court, K police officers stated that the Defendant’s vehicle was in progress at a place that is difficult to break out between patrol vehicles 4 and model taxiss, and that MDo investigation agencies, which are exemplary taxi drivers, did not have sufficient space between patrol vehicles and model taxiss, thereby making it possible for police officers to predict the date of the serious accident.

③ Before stopping, the Defendant was proceeding at a rapid speed, and even after shocking the police officer, the Defendant proceeded at a rapid speed. In the case of Defendant’s black stuff image, the Defendant’s motion picture was sounded on November 8, 2016, on which the police officer K opened the Defendant’s vehicle at around 22:33:46, the second second second second:46.

The Defendant carried down by plucking or plucking down hand on the left side.According to the model taxi boom video, the Defendant was driving a vehicle in a narrow space between the patrol car 4 and model taxi immediately after the police officer came to have access to the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(B) L was made by a police officer in the investigative agency to leave the vehicle, and the other patrol cars are also in front of the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the Defendant was forced to leave the vehicle. The Defendant seems to have taken a sudden place to the extent that it is unpredictable.

Reasons for sentencing

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

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 on Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties and Death or Injury resulting from Special Obstruction of Public Duties (Bodily Injury or Injury resulting from Special Obstruction of

[Special Aggravationd ] Aggravationd : None

Reduction Elements: Non-conformity of Punishment

[No person who is a general person]

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area: Imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months to 3 years;

[The scope of revised recommendations] Imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months to 16 years 1)

3. Determination of sentence;

Of the instant crimes, the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the police officer. The Defendant, in consultation with the police officer, does not want the Defendant’s punishment. These points are favorable to the Defendant.

However, in order to avoid the lawful drinking control by police officers, the Defendant committed a scambling along the center line at a rapid speed beyond the opposite lane, and carried out a scambling and driving at the next rapid speed, and refused to comply with the request of police officers who want to get off the vehicle and sustained injuries to police officers, etc. In order to prevent the occurrence of the crime, the Defendant committed a serious risk of criticism, such as causing a traffic accident, causing human and material damage, or causing traffic obstruction. The Defendant’s crime is highly likely to cause a traffic accident, and thus, did not sufficiently reflect his mistake while defending the Defendant that he did not have any intention to attack the police officers. In addition, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine for a drunk driving in 2015, and was sentenced by a fine for a drunk driving in 2016, despite the fact that the Defendant committed the crime in this case, taking into account such unfavorable circumstances, the Defendant was subject to punishment equivalent to the Defendant’s age and condition of the crime.

The presiding judge charter

Judges Yang Yang-soo

Judges Jeon Jae-chul

1) Since the above crimes to which the sentencing criteria are applied are concurrent crimes with the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) to which the sentencing criteria are not applicable and the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act, only the lower limit of the sentencing criteria shall apply.