2015No421 Injury, obstruction of performance of duties, obstruction of performance of duties, assault

A

Defendant

Sexual Disease Findings(Criminal Prosecutions) and Findings(Public Trial)

Attorney T (Korean Charter)

Changwon District Court Decision 2014 Godan997 decided February 4, 2015

April 2, 2015

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties on September 16, 2014)

Although the Defendant did not threaten C, who is a public official in charge of basic livelihood supply and demand at a cultural Dong community service center around September 16, 2014, the Defendant asserted that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(b) Mental health and injury (inflicting, assault, and obstruction of business on October 3, 2014).

The defendant asserts, under the influence of alcohol, that he/she committed a crime of bodily injury, assault, or interference with business on October 3, 2014 in the state of mental disorder.

C. Unreasonable sentencing

The defendant asserts that the punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Part on the assertion of mistake of fact

1) This part of the facts charged

피고인은 2014. 9. 16. 14:30경 창원시 마산합포구 D에 있는 피고인의 집에서, 피고인의 상담 요청을 받고 방문한 문화동주민센터 기초생활수급 관련 업무 담당공무원인 위 C에게 "집주인이 10월까지 집을 비우라고 하는데 앞으로 살길이 막막하다. 내를 도와주지 않으면 칼로 찔러 죽어 버릴 것이고, 통장과 돈을 동사무소에 던져버릴 것이 다!" 라고 말하면서 눈을 부릅뜬 채 노려보며 겁을 주어 C를 협박하였다. 이로써 피고인은 사회복지담당 공무원의 기초생활수급업무에 관한 정당한 직무집행을 방해하였다.

2) The judgment of the court below

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable in having determined that the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of public service duties by taking into account the following circumstances: ① a public official who belongs to the cultural Dong community service center, visited the Defendant’s residence on September 16, 2014 at the Defendant’s request on or around September 14:30; ② the Defendant thought that C voluntarily paid the Defendant from the date of the occurrence of the instant case to the date of the occurrence of the instant case reduced the basic livelihood supply cost; and ② there was a good appraisal against C; and ③ consistently from the investigative agency to the lower court, the Defendant’s house at the time of the investigation agency to October 10; and ③ prevents the Defendant from living in the future. If the Defendant consistently stated that “A, who is a public official belonging to the Dong community service center, will die with knife, and will leave the head of Dong and money at the Dong office.”

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. Part of the claim for mental illness

According to the records, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the crime, in light of the Defendant’s reputation, the background leading to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., even though the Defendant was aware of drinking at the time of committing the crime on October 3, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant's argument about mental illness is not accepted.

In full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, which are the conditions for the argument and the sentencing indicated in the record, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and it is not determined that the sentence is unreasonable, considering the following: (a) the Defendant has already been punished several times as a crime of violence; (b) the public official C in charge of social welfare who intends to assist the Defendant was damaged; (c) the public official’s performance of official duties is obstructed; and (d) the victims did not submit particular materials about the recovery of damage; and (c) no special circumstances or circumstances have been newly considered after the sentence of the lower court was issued.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

The defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and assistant judge;

Judges Song Jong-soo

Judges Kim Gin-soo