2020 Highest 177. Injury by special obstruction of performance of official duties, damage to special public goods, road bridges

Violation of the traffic law (driving), violation of the Road Traffic Act, the Road Traffic Act

Violations (Unlicensed Driving)

Defendant Kim (Gain Kim) and 96. Livelihood and Company Board

Residential Ulsan-gu

The term "public prosecution", the term "public trial", and the term "public trial", respectively.

Attorney Lee* (Korean National Assembly)

November 6, 2020

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Criminal History Office

【Criminal Power】

On March 29, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and a fine of 200,000 won for one year by imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and on June 27, 2017, the same court was sentenced to nine months by imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on September 19 of the same year, the sentence of the said suspended sentence was invalidated upon the final judgment, and on January 22, 2019, the execution of the said sentence was completed in the Ansan Prison.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Violation of the Road Traffic Act and the Road Traffic Act;

피고인은 2020. 6. 24. 21:00경 울산 남구 정동로 75에 있는 '챔피언 나이트' 인근 도로부터 울산 동구 방어진순환도로 100에 있는 '현대미포조선' 정문 인근 도로에 이르기까지 약 20킬로미터 구간에서 혈중알코올농도 0.177%의 술에 취한 상태에서 운전면허를 받지 아니하고 @@#@@@@호 K7 승용자동차를 운전하였다. 이로써 피고인은 술에 취한 상태에서의 운전 금지 규정을 2회 이상 위반함과 동시에 운전면허를 받지 아니하고 자동차를 운전하였다.

2. No driver of any motor vehicle, etc. who has violated the Road Traffic Act shall threaten or endanger any other person, or cause any danger to traffic, by consecutively committing two or more acts from among the acts of violating signal, overline, violating speed, etc., or by continuing or repeatedly committing one act;

As above, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, while driving the said K7 Passenger Car with the 112 report that “ there is a vehicle driving with the said K7 Passenger Car,” ** x * * * * ************* 1 of the patrol vehicle and the police officer belonging to the Ulsan Eastdong Police Station who has boarded the patrol vehicle, etc. as set forth in No. 11.

While driving the above K7 passenger car at the time and time as set forth in the above paragraph (1), the Defendant was driving along the road in front of the ‘Neg-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-S-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-Sa-S

3. Injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties or damage to special public goods;

The Defendant, as described in the above paragraph (1) of the same day, escaped on the front side of Ulsan-dong defense cycle of the same day at around 21:53 on the same day, when the patrolr No. 11 attached to the port side of the above K7 passenger car, who was followed by the patrolr, to the port side of the above K7 passenger car, and to the port side of the said K7 passenger car, which is an object dangerous to the left side of the said patrolr, and thereby, caused the said patrolr to take the central separation zone. On the other hand, the Defendant continued to have the said patrolr taken the front side of the said K7 passenger car at around 21:5 on the same day, at around 21:55, the front side of the said K passenger car, where the first patrolr took the right side of the said K7 passenger car, followed by the said part of the said K passenger car again to the port side of the said 1:5 on the port side of the said 1:5th parallel of the said K passenger car.

이로써 피고인은 위험한 물건을 휴대하여 위 1호 순찰차를 운전하던 울산동부경찰서 소속 경사 정경사(가명) 및 위 11호 순찰차를 운전하던 같은 경찰서 소속 경위 김경위를 폭행함으로써 경찰공무원의 교통단속에 관한 정당한 직무집행을 방해하여 위 정경사를 약 2주간의 치료가 필요한 '경부 및 요부 염좌'의 상해, 위 김경위를 약 2주간의 치료가 필요한 '경추의 염좌 및 긴장' 등의 상해에 이르게 함과 동시에 프론트범퍼커버 교환 등 3,804,041원이 들 정도로 공무소에서 사용하는 물건인 위 1호 순찰차를, 사이 드스텝몰딩 교환 등 수리비가 426,446원이 들 정도로 공무소에서 사용하는 물건인 위 11호 순찰차를 손상하였다.

Summary of Evidence

(Omission)

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 144(2) main sentence and (1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 144(1), 141(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Articles 148-2(1) and 44(1) (a) of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 151-2 and 46-3 (a) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 152 subparag. 1 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act (a point of driving without a license)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crimes of injury resulting from the obstruction of special performance of official duties and the crimes of damage to special public goods)

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), a violation of the Road Traffic Act, or a violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act: Provided, That restriction on proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act shall apply to the bodily injury resulting from special obstruction of execution

within the extent of

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, Article 50, and the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act (the aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes of injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties, which is the largest punishment)

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 50 years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) First offense (Bodily causing obstruction of performance of official duties);

[Determination of Punishment] The Injury resulting from the Obstruction of Official Duties by Special Obstruction of Public Officials [Article 1]

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Where there are many public officials who have suffered damage, and where the degree of interference with public duties is serious.

[Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations] Special Priority Area, 3 years of imprisonment to 10 years of June

(b) The fact that the sentencing criteria are not set for the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act, the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act;

(c) Scope of recommending punishment according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: At least three years of imprisonment (limited to the lowest limit of the recommended sentencing range for crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set, since crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and crimes for which no sentencing criteria are set are concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal

(d) Scope of recommended sentences that are modified by applicable sentences: Three to fifty years of imprisonment (in cases where the upper limit of the range of sentences recommended by the sentencing criteria is inconsistent with the statutory applicable sentences, the upper limit of the applicable sentences shall be set according to the statutory applicable sentences);

3. According to the judgment of sentence, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant again under the influence of alcohol driving whose license was revoked due to his driving under the influence of alcohol driving, and by taking the patrol of police officers, the police officers followed during the course of his escape, and thereby causing the injury to two police officers and damaged the two patrols.

In response to a request from a police officer to stop and escape, and shocking the patrol vehicle with the vehicle is not only a violation of the legitimate public authority, but also a serious danger to the police officer. In particular, the defendant committed an scambling in the course of escape, such as the violation of speed, the violation of signal at least eight times, and the repetition of traffic at least five times in the center during the course of escape, which is highly likely to be subject to criticism in that there was a large number of accidents, and the citizens might have been significantly different. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc., and again committed the crime in this case during the period of a repeated offense. The defendant did not reach an agreement with the victimized police officer, and did not recover from the damage caused by the damaged patrol. In light of the background and content of the crime, the risk, consequence of the act, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the corresponding punishment corresponding thereto is difficult.

However, considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant acknowledges and reflects all of his mistake, and that the degree of injury suffered by a police officer is not serious due to the crime of this case, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence, circumstances before and after the crime of this case, etc., and various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, including the circumstances before and after the crime

Presiding Judge, Judge Park Jong-young

Judges Gindo-young

Judges' Binding

1) The defense counsel of the defendant erred in the part stated as follows, because there was no conflict between the defendant's vehicle and patrol vehicle with the defendant's vehicle.

However, police officer's assertion that the defendant's vehicle and the chief 11 of the police officer's 's 102 pages of the collision (Evidence No. 102 pages),' of the defendant's 11 met even.

In light of the statement (No. 150 pages of evidence) of the official Kim Jong-soo, etc., the defendant's vehicle can be recognized as having received the patrol vehicle.

Ro, defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.