Defendant

Defendant

Freeboard of Reasons (prosecutions) and prosecution (public trial)

Public-service Kim Tae

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Ra1573 Decided October 8, 2014

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake

1) The Defendant, who is an employee of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, committed a serious noise to the Defendant, and responded thereto. However, Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1 (the Nonindicted Party on Board) did not disclose his/her status, and in general, did not recognize whether the said employee was in the course of performing his/her official duties as a public official because there are many cases of being entrusted by an external service company for the protection of the office building of a public institution.

2) The Defendant, as an aged person, was a public official who is more young and physically disabled than the Defendant, and was a minor physical contact with Nonindicted Party 1 (Person in Large-Stop), and there was no assault to the extent that Nonindicted Party 1 (Person in Large-Stop) might go beyond the floor.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the lower court (five million won by fine) is unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Determination as to the assertion that Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1 (the Nonindicted Party on Board) did not recognize that they were in the line of official duty

1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, ① Nonindicted 2 was in charge of the security and maintenance of order as the police assigned to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission; ② Nonindicted 2 was in charge of the management support of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission and the safety management of the office building and civil petitioners as part of fixed-term workers belonging to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission; ② Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1 (the counter-indicted 1) was in charge of the affairs of Non-Indicted 1, who was in charge of the affairs of the Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 1 (the counter-indicted 1), who was in front of the first floor of the office building of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, and was in charge of the affairs of Non-Indicted 2 and Non-Indicted 1 (the counter-indicted 1) when the defendant avoiding disturbance as indicated in the facts in the judgment of the court below and assault Non-Indicted 1 (the counter-indicted 1).

2) A public official who is subject to the obstruction of performance of official duties is a person engaged in the affairs of the State or local government or a corresponding public corporation, and whose contents are not limited to mere mechanical or physical materials (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14484 Decided January 27, 201). A public official who is subject to the obstruction of performance of official duties is both a public official in the crime of obstruction of official duties, and a public official who is the police assigned for special guard, and a person who is in charge of safety management of the office building and civil petitioner guidance of the Anti-Corruption

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant was notified of access-related procedures from the above Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1 (the counter-indicted 1) in the office building of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, and was allowed to access from the above Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1 (the counter-indicted 1). Although the Defendant was aware that the above Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1 (the counter-indicted 1) were in charge of maintaining order as a public official belonging to the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, the Defendant committed the instant crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Determination as to the assertion that Nonindicted Party 1 (the Nonindicted Party 1) did not assault the floor level to the extent beyond the floor

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 1 (Counter-board Person) are consistent from the investigation agency to the court of the court below, and the defendant made a statement that Nonindicted 1 (Counter-board Person) would have been used in a timely manner by selling the name of Nonindicted 1 (Counter-board Person) in the process of extending out the part part of the arms to the lower court, and Nonindicted 3, a third party who is not related to the defendant, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 1 (Counter-board Person) was also stated in the court of the court of the court below as well. Upon considering the following circumstances, it can be recognized that if the defendant moves out from the court of the court of the court of the court of the court below to the non-indicted 1 (Counter-board Person Person Person), the fact that the defendant would have sold the name corresponding to the ordinary part of the person's body, thereby having been used in the part of the non-indicted 1 (the counter-indicted person).

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing

In the process of pushing Nonindicted Party 1 (Person who was the Person who was the Person who was the Person who was the Person who was the Person who was the Person who was the Person who was the Person who was the Person who was the Person was the Person who was the Person who was the Person who was the Person who was the Person who was the Person who was the Person was the Person who was the Person who was the Person who was the Person was the Person who was the Person who was the Person who was the Person was the Person who was the Person who was the Person was the Person who was the Person who was the Person was the Person who was the Person was the Person who was the Person who was the Person was the Person who was the Person was the Person who was the Person who was the Person

However, in full view of the factors of sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant and other various factors of sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the sentence of the lower court against the Defendant is adequate, in view of the following: (a) the Defendant did not oppose the Defendant’s denial of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant visited public institutions to take a bath and singing, etc.; (c) committed assault against public officials working in the office building, avoiding disturbance; and (d) the nature of such offense was bad; and (d) Nonindicted Party 1 (Person Nonindicted Party) stated in the

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Osung U.S. (Presiding Judge)