logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.10.15 2015노951
공무집행방해
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a fine of seven million won) declared by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment is that the method or the nature of the crime is not good, such as gathering garbage bags from the police called upon receiving a report that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and removing the Nexponor from the police’s breath, etc. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is a criminal who impairs the State’s function by nullifyinging legitimate exercise of public authority. The Defendant, who is a public official, is likely to be subject to criticism. The criminal records of the Defendant’s punishment for the crime of violence, and the criminal records of the same kind of crime are attached to the Defendant, which are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant is recognized to commit an offense, and the defendant has no criminal record exceeding a fine, there is no record of criminal punishment after 2009, and there is no result of injury to the victimized police officer, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, considering the various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, career, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment, which allowed the Defendant to have an opportunity to reflect at the same time, cannot be deemed unfair because it is too uneasible.

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

[However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the first sentence of the second sentence of the judgment of the court below, "F (27 years of age)" in the second sentence of the judgment of the court below, shall be deemed "F officer," and each "victim of the third sentence of the same paragraph shall be deemed "F officer," respectively, and shall be corrected as "F officer,"

arrow