Defendant

Defendant

Isebals

Attorney Hun-Ba et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2007Gohap157-1 (Separation) Decided August 29, 2008

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days prior to the imposition of judgment after an appeal shall be included in the penalty of the original judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles

The Defendant did not directly engage in any act of causing special obstruction of performance of official duties, damage to public goods, or general traffic obstruction, which the lower court found the Defendant guilty, and did not have conspired with those who wish to commit a crime. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offense, or by misapprehending the facts, thereby having convicted the Defendant of all the charges on this part by deeming that the Defendant was in a relationship of joint principal offender with those who wish to commit a

B. The sentence of one and a half years of imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, such as the implementation of a crime through functional control over the will of joint processing and the arrest of the defendant. The court below duly adopted and examined the evidence, namely, the defendant, acting as the Director General of the National Association of Labor Unions, Olive Regional Organization and Organization, and led measures on September 28, 2006, and was punished for obstruction of performance of special duties or damage to public goods. The defendant seems not to have been in the position to host the assembly and demonstration of this case as a general member at the time of the crime of this case. However, the defendant did not appear to have been in the position to hold the assembly and demonstration of this case, but to have actively participated in the assembly and demonstration of this case at the time of the crime of this case, such as an act of violence, such as an act of violence, which was committed by the defendant, and the defendant was not in the position to hold the assembly and demonstration of this case, and the defendant actively participated in the assembly and demonstration of this case at the time of the crime of this case.

B. On the issue of unfair sentencing

Although the defendant shows the appearance of reflecting the defendant's mistake, the defendant is punished for a suspended sentence for the same kind of crime as mentioned above, and again commits the crime of this case, despite the fact that the result of the damage of this case is not less than that of the defendant, and in full consideration of all the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, including the motive, circumstance, means and result of the crime of this case committed by the defendant, the defendant's age, character and conduct, criminal record relationship, and circumstances after the crime, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable even if considering the grounds for the defendant's assertion, so the defendant's assertion is not justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 57 of the Criminal Act provides that 210 days of detention prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the punishment of the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)