beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
A seized carcar (No. 1) shall be confiscated.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced to the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. In the case of assault and intimidation against multiple public officials who perform the same official duties, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are established according to the number of public officials who perform official duties. The above assault and intimidation were committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and in the case of being assessed as one act under the social concept, multiple crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties are crimes of conceptual concurrence.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3505 Decided June 25, 2009). B.
1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant acted and threatened as a public official H's face at the Busan Jung-gu G community service center on January 29, 2015 at around 13:30, and as a public official I and J desire to speak, and assault or threaten the above public official. The above act was committed at the same place at the same time, and it is reasonable to evaluate the defendant as one act in light of social norms. Thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties against H, I, and J is in a mutually competitive relationship. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes of obstruction of official duties, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Further, according to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, the defendant can be recognized as having the above public official's desire in his/her own clothes in Busan G community service center at around 16:50 on January 29, 2015.
Since the above act of the defendant was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, it is reasonable to evaluate the act as a single act in light of social norms, each special obstruction of performance of official duties against I and H is common sense.