beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The punishment of the accused shall be determined by eight months of imprisonment.
except that from the date of this judgment.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (eight months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant, which is a public object, destroyed the signboard of the police box, obstructed the performance of official duties by assaulting the victim who is a patrolman, and at the same time inflicted bodily injury on the victim. In light of the Criminal Procedure Act, the nature of the crime is not good in light of the law, etc., the act of obstructing the performance of official duties of police officers in uniform requires strict punishment to enhance the national public authority, and the fact that it has not been agreed with the victim is disadvantageous.
However, there are favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant repents his mistake and reflects it, the fact that the damaged police box was repaired, the damage was recovered by repairing the destroyed police box, the fact that there was no record of criminal punishment except that sentenced once a fine has been sentenced so far, the family members of the defendant want to guide the defendant, and that the victim's family members want not serious damage (such as damage to satisfy in the part requiring treatment for about seven days), and the victim's age, character and behavior, environment, the circumstances and result of the crime in this case, and the first crime (fence) [the scope of recommendations] of the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court sentencing Committee (4 months to one year and one hundred months) [the scope of punishment] of the basic area (i.e., the basic area (i., the general injury) of the victim's basic area (i.e., the minor injury) [the scope of punishment] of the punishment of obstruction of performance of official duties where the defendant's family members want to take advantage of the victim's degree of damage (i.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified.