2020No1719 Special obstruction of performance of official duties, injury to public goods, or aiding and abetting criminal escape.

A

Defendant

He/she shall file a prosecution, hold a prosecution, or hold a trial.

Attorney Lee Slova (Korean)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2020Gohap447 Decided September 17, 2020

2020, 12.4

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: Unfair sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

The Defendant, while driving a motor vehicle in a state of drinking, did not neglect the demand of the police officer to stop the motor vehicle after receiving a report of 112 while driving the motor vehicle, was sent to the police officer by the motor vehicle, followed by the police officer, and then coming to escape, and the method of committing the crime is very dangerous, such as causing injury to the police officer, damaging the police vehicle, and destroying the police vehicle by the police officer, etc., and the responsibility is very heavy. Furthermore, by forcing Co-defendant B of the lower court to make a false confession to Co-defendant B of the lower court, the Defendant is not likely to commit the crime, such as instigating the victim of the crime. The Defendant had a large number of criminal records, and the instant crime was committed during the period of repeated crime.

However, the Defendant shows the attitude to recognize and reflect all of the instant crimes at the latest. The Defendant did not have the same criminal record, and one of five victimized police officers expressed his will on the Defendant. In addition, taking into account the Defendant’s age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, various sentencing conditions, legal applicable sentences, and sentencing criteria 1 of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, which are expressed in the records and arguments, including the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the following decision is

[Grounds for multi-use Judgment]

The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence. The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court is identical to each corresponding column of the part of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 144(2) and (1), 136(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Article 141(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Articles 151(1) and 31(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Article 144(2) and (1), and Article 136(1) (a) of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment prescribed for the crime of causing bodily injury to the victim K and L by each special obstruction of performance of official duties, and the punishment for the crime of causing bodily injury to the special obstruction of official duties against the grave principal)

1. Selection of punishment;

The crime of aiding and abetting an offender shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act (However, the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act shall apply to the crime of bodily injury resulting from the obstruction of performance

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

1. The grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act)

2. Scope of recommending sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria shall not apply because some crimes are in the relationship of ordinary concurrent crimes.

3. Determination of sentence: Four years of imprisonment;

The above punishment shall be determined on the grounds of the determination of unfair sentencing.

the presiding judge and deputy judge

Judges Lee Jong-hwan

Judges Associate Jin

1) The sentencing criteria do not apply to the crime of causing injury to each particular obstruction of performance of official duties and the crime of causing damage to public goods in an ordinary competition relationship, but reference is

The scope of recommendations for the crime of injury resulting from the obstruction of special performance of official duties as seen in this paper shall be three to four years of imprisonment (in the case of recommendations for basic punishment, two to four years of imprisonment; or

In contrast to the lower limit of the applicable sentencing, it is based on the lower limit of the applicable sentencing in law. If there are many public officials who have suffered damage, it shall be applicable.

From 3 years to 7 years of imprisonment with prison labor, which is the aggravated area. When applying the standards for handling multiple crimes to each crime of causing bodily injury to the performance of special duties, 3 to 7 years of imprisonment.

is the same.