The forecast of the occurrence of the result of the aggravated crime and result

Since the crime of bodily injury resulting from the obstruction of the performance of special duties in Article 144(2) of the Criminal Code is an aggravated crime, it is sufficient that the perpetrator does not have to intend the result, and it is possible to anticipate the occurrence of the result.

Article 144(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

(National Election) Attorneys Kim Sang-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 80No33 delivered on March 5, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

50 days from among days of detention pending the judgment in this case shall be included in the principal sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defense counsel and the defendant themselves are also examined.

Since the court of first instance, which accepted the original judgment and the evidence in the original judgment, cannot be deemed to have been unlawful in the incomplete hearing in view of the records, and since the facts charged are denied, or there is a violation of the rules of evidence, the argument that there is a mistake of facts in the original judgment is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding judge, and in view of the records, it is not recognized that there is a violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence in the original judgment, since it comes back to the argument for a mistake of facts, and it is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where the court below sentenced the defendant to a punishment for a short term of one year and

In addition, the court below's finding that a single act of the defendant's injury resulting from the special obstruction of performance of official duties constitutes several crimes, and that the court below's explanation of the defendant's crime constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of injury resulting from the obstruction of official duties as provided by Article 144 (2) of the Criminal Act, and since the result is a serious crime, it is not necessary for the perpetrator to intend the result, and it is sufficient to anticipate the occurrence of the result. In addition, as stated in the reasoning of the court below, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of the so-called injury resulting from the obstruction of official duties as provided by Article 144 (2) of the Criminal Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the punishment of the original judgment, and even if the court below'

All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act to the inclusion of days of pre-trial detention.

Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)

Justices Seo Jae-tae (Presiding Justice) who is unable to sign and affix a seal on overseas business trip.