2014 Highest 2346 Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Damage to Property

A person shall be appointed.

Park Gin-si (Lawsuits) and Lee Jin-be (Trial)

Attorney Park Jong-sung (Korean, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

October 29, 2014

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Criminal facts

On November 22, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution in the year preceding Daejeon District Court on the grounds of indecent act by compulsion, bodily injury, and obstruction of performance of official duties, and was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution in November 30, 2012. The judgment becomes final and conclusive on November 30, 2012, and is currently under suspension of execution.

1. On June 29, 2014: (a) around 00, the Defendant: (b) operated by the Victim A in Seo-gu, Daejeon around 00; (c) caused the damage by having the Victim B, C, who was sent to the floor upon receiving a report of 112 from the time on which he was under the influence of alcohol after taking an order in the restaurant; and (d) caused the Defendant to gather one of the members of the market value of the victim, who was the victim’s possession, in a manner that he was under the influence of alcohol.

2. At the same time and time as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the Defendant was under the influence of the police officer B, who was a police officer belonging to the Daejeon District Police Station located in Daejeon, who was called upon 112 report at the same time and at the same place as mentioned above, and the police officer B, who was under the influence of the Defendant and was under the influence of drinking by causing the Defendant, and without any reason, “A, e.g., e., e., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g.,

Accordingly, the above police officers spite the Defendant at one time on the 112 patrols when arresting the Defendant as a flagrant offender under suspicion of obstruction of the performance of official duties. "I ambling off the flag, flag, flag," and flaged the Defendant at the sloping D and B.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning 112 declaration processing and arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement made to D and B;

1. A E statement;

1. A report on investigation;

1. On-site photographs, and on-site photographs of a suspect, in which the suspect gathers and shots the suspect and shots;

1. A written agreement;

1. A statement on criminal records, etc. and a criminal investigation report (a report accompanying the written judgment);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Article 366 (Crimes of Causing Damage to Property) of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of each Criminal Act (Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties)

1. Competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of penalty;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

Considering the fact that each crime in the ruling has been committed during the period of probation for the same crime, that there has been an agreement with the victim A, and that it is against it.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Cormoon