2015 Highest 4235 Special Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Violation of the rate (vehicle) and the Road Traffic Act (Influence after an accident)

(D) in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, damage to public property, and violation of

Article 10 (Violation of Traffic Act without License)

A, Rotterdam equipment business

Residence

Reference domicile

○○ (Lawsuits) and ○○ (Public Trial)

Law Firm (Caution) 00

○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○

October 7, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Criminal facts

On July 6, 2015: around 47, 2015: Around 08: Around 47, the Defendant was required to stop from B police officers belonging to the Seoul Coast Guard that confirmed that the driver’s license of the said passenger was revoked on the road front of the Seoul Education Training Institute for Seoul, Seocho-gu 490, while driving a car by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which is owned by the Defendant without a driver’s license. Accordingly, the Defendant was willing to flee by driving without a license, and the Defendant began to depart from the said car by acceleratinging it.

While the Defendant had escaped as above, the Defendant discovered an OOOOO cargo vehicle driven by the victim C, who was to turn to the left from the front side of the Seoul e-distance Intersection, which is located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Area 51-ro 2-ro, Seocho-gu, Seoul, to the front side of the said cargo vehicle due to occupational negligence, which led to the failure to reduce speed due to the above escape and making a turn to the left, and received the front side of the said cargo vehicle as the front side of the said ○○○ vehicle. The Defendant sustained approximately two weeks of the said cargo vehicle due to the shock, and sustained the said cargo vehicle so that the repair cost would amount to KRW 1,019,005.

While the Defendant was driving along the bus stops at the private bus stops at the bus stops due to occupational negligence that did not reduce the speed of the police officers, the Defendant received the center separation zone adjacent to the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○ bus stops, which was driven by D while stopping at the bus stops, from the top side of the above ○○○○○○ car. The Defendant continued to escape without destroying and stopping the central separation zone and the bus repair cost of KRW 719,334, and the above bus repair cost of KRW 928,939, respectively.

The Defendant, who continued to drive away, escaped in the direction of the intersection of the zone where the police officers suffered damage, and the left and right turn to the right at the intersection of the zone, was parked in the back of the Defendant’s passenger car by the patrol vehicle which was driven by the driver, and the Defendant stopped. The police officers E, who belong to the Air Force Police Station, driven the patrol vehicle at ○○ OOOOOOOOO, and obstructed the Defendant’s front of the ○○○○ passenger car which stopped as above.

However, in order to secure an escape space with the mind that the Defendant would escape from the front and the rear through a police vehicle, the Defendant continued to drive the Defendant’s ○○○ car by leaving the steering gear toward the port and driving the Defendant’s ○○○ car, and taking the side part of the above ○○ OOOO No patrol vehicle, which the police officer F, belonging to the above E and the Defense Police Station, was driven by the Defendant’s OOO No. 1,52,472, the repair cost of the patrol vehicle, which is a public object, was destroyed to the front part of the Defendant’s OO No. 1,52, and escape to the direction of the station.

The Defendant discovered the OOOOO No. ○○ car driven by the victim G, which had been driven by a large number of vehicles around the Hyundai SO Bank in front of the Hyundai SOO Bank, but escape as above.

Then, due to the occupational negligence of the Defendant driving without a license without a speed, the lower part of the said ○○ car was received as the front part of the said ○○ car by negligence. due to the shock, the said victim G suffered injury, such as cerebral lele which requires approximately 17 days of medical treatment.

Accordingly, the Defendant, while driving a vehicle without obtaining a driver's license, sustained injury to the victim C in need of medical treatment for about two weeks by avoiding traffic accidents while driving the vehicle at least three times, and escaped without immediately stopping and taking necessary measures even after destroying the victim C's cargo vehicles, central separation zone, or D's urban bus, and then leaving the vehicle. The Defendant assaulted the victim E or F to the Defendant's ○○○○ Car, which is an object dangerous to the police officer's patrol vehicle, by taking the dangerous measures, thereby obstructing the police officer's legitimate execution of duties for the suppression of the crime and the prevention of traffic danger, hindering its utility by damaging the police vehicle which is a public object, and causing injury to the victim G's ○○ Car. The summary of evidence was that the victim suffered injury to the victim in need of medical treatment for 17 days.

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to H, E, and C;

1. G statements;

1. A written statement on the occurrence of D traffic accidents;

1. Each photograph (the No. 12, 15 of the evidence list);

1. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Each written estimate (the sequence 10, 27, 28, 29 of the evidence list);

1. A traffic accident report (the actual survey report);

1. Each written diagnosis (the sequence 25, 26 of the evidence list);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 152 subparagraph 1 of Article 152 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of driving without a license), Article 5-3 (1) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the point of escape after the negligence in the line of duty), Articles 148 and 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of failing to take measures after the traffic accident), Articles 144 (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of carrying dangerous articles), Article 141 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of impairing the objects for public use), Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the point of

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 (Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) of the Criminal Act and Article 50 (Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and Article C of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the Crimes of Obstruction of Special Performance of Official Duties and the Crimes of Damage to Public Goods in the holding. Penalties are heavier, and punishments prescribed by the

1. Selection of punishment;

Punishment of imprisonment without prison labor for the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and for the remaining crimes.

Each sentence shall be selected

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and (2), Article 50, and the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act was that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine on May 23, 201, for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Egressing Vehicles), which is the same crime, and that the Defendant was sentenced to a fine on March 12, 2015. While the driver’s license was revoked, the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine on March 12, 2015. As the driver’s license was revoked, a number of traffic accidents have occurred while driving without a license without a ditch and making the police take place, and the police attempted to arrest the Defendant. In light of the fact that there was a serious danger to road traffic in the process, the crime committed by the Defendant cannot be deemed to be less.

In addition to the above circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim G, C, and the fact that the damage caused by property appears to have been covered by insurance, shall be considered, and the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, result, and circumstances after the crime.

Judges Lee Lee-soo-