beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1’s mistake of fact (as to Defendant 1’s interference with the performance of official duties), the Defendant, without recognizing that E was a police officer at the time of the instant case, did not have any intention to interfere with the performance of official duties.
2) At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.
3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a term of six months) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor 1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant's misunderstanding of facts (in the case of injury), and the fact that the injured police officer was injured due to extreme resistance against the defendant during the arrest process was found to have been injured. Thus, the defendant was injured.
may be seen.
2) The above sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unfair.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the police officer E who was sent to the site of this case upon receiving a report 112 report, was in the police uniform at the time, ② the police officer’s “when first going to the site,” and the police officer’s “whether the police officer was dissatis in this situation.”
“I asked a boat or cigarette,” and the police did not speak to do so.
It is clear that the defendant was aware that he was a police officer because he was named as a police officer at a clearly site.
The prosecutor made the statement "(99 pages of evidence)," which read "(159 pages of evidence, the prosecutor made a statement that "the defendant asked about the defendant's portrait him/her about his/her portrait?" (159 pages of evidence) and "the court below did not need to clarify that he/she is a police officer because he/she was in the police uniform," and the defendant did not have any need to clarify that he/she is a police officer.
Because of “the statement” was made.