logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.06.05 2019노1152
특수공무집행방해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, voluntarily knife a knife, cannot be deemed as a threat of harm and injury to a public official on duty.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, namely, ① the Defendant’s act is not merely a self-injury, but also an act of threatening a public official performing his/her duties when he/she did not comply with the Defendant’s demand to receive a full-time financial assistance benefit, and the Defendant consulted with the public official in charge of C viewer’s welfare hub in order to obtain a full-time financial assistance benefit, and called “the public official will be considered to have a face-to-face.” ② The Defendant was punished by self-harm during about one hour, including the Defendant’s violation of his/her own arms, and ③ the Defendant committed the above act against the public official in face-to-face counseling at the office.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do2311, Jun. 15, 2006; 2010Do14316, Jan. 27, 2011). Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is without merit.

B. The fact that the defendant was the primary offender, and that the defendant did not directly harm the public official is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the nature of the crime is not very good in light of the circumstances of the crime in this case and the risk of the attitude of the act is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 5 million.

When comprehensively taking into account the conditions of sentencing and the applicable sentences in the trial, the judgment of the court below is discretionary.

arrow