beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.
The defendant above.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was seated in the JJJ while getting out of C and B, who was unable to avoid disturbance, and was able to take care of the police officer at the time when he gets out of the JJ, and the police officer took a bath by calling that he gets out of the lock, and there was no interference with the police officer’s performance of official duties in collusion with C and B. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of obstruction of the performance of official duties among the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous by
2. Determination
A. The summary of the charges charged with the obstruction of performance of official duties is as follows: (a) the Defendant conspired with C and B, around 16:10 on July 14, 2012, and (b) the Defendant expressed that “in the Jangu L, Daegu L,” C, in good hand, string the slope M belonging to the said earth, and knife it with his hand, and he tried to K when she was a policeman belonging to the said earth; (c) he walked the back of the said earth on two occasions; (d) walked on the bridge part of the slope part of the said earth’s slope belonging to the said earth, and walked on three, four occasions, and walked on the bridge part of the said earth, and (d) he she sawed with money to the hospital, and the Defendant did not interfere with the order of the police officer’s body by taking the body of the said earth into consideration the body of the Defendant.”
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by compiling the adopted evidence.
C. A joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act of the first instance judgment commits a crime jointly by two or more persons. In order to constitute a joint principal offender, it is necessary to have committed a crime through a functional control by a joint doctor, which is a subjective requirement, and the intention of joint process is one of the two different persons with a view to committing a specific criminal act by a joint doctor.