beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning Defendant A and D shall be reversed.
Defendant
A or D shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant B (misunderstanding of fact) Defendant B did not have any physical contact with police officers, including assault.
2) Even if Defendant B’s assertion to arrest an illegal flagrant offender (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), Defendant B assaulted a police officer.
Even if a police officer did not notify C and A of the doctrine while arresting Defendant A as an offender in the act of committing an offense, the act of assaulting against the above illegal performance of official duties does not constitute an interference with the execution of official duties.
B) Defendant B was not informed of the Non-public principles at the time of arrest as an offender in the act of committing an offense.
B. Defendant A and D’s sentence (Defendant A and D’s imprisonment with labor for each of 9 months) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant B’s assertion, the lower court’s determination on the charge of assaulting the Defendant B’s act of obstructing the arrest of the police officer in the act of obstructing the police officer’s flagrant act by means of defects in the police officer’s attempt to arrest C and the Defendant A as a current offender, and by causing the police officer’s loss.
Defendant
B’s assertion is not accepted.
2) The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, determined as follows, on the assertion that police officers did not notify C and Defendant A of the doctrine of disturbance.
① As C’s hand, the lower part of the police officer M’s back, and the police officer M attempted to arrest C as a current offender, and notified C that C would have the opportunity to appoint a defense counsel and a defense counsel and a defense for committing an act of interference with the performance of official duties, and that C could apply for an examination of legality of arrest. ② Since C, E, and the Defendants were interfering with the arrest of a flagrant offender by assaulting police officers, a majority of the police officers dispatched to the scene should be arrested.