2015Gohap235 Special obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Injury to Public Goods, Road Traffic Act

Violation (driving) and Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Unlicensed Driving)

Kim 10 (A man living 84 years old);

March 17, 2016

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Power】

On September 11, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court on one-year period of imprisonment. On April 29, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for the same crime, etc. at the Changwon District Court, and completed the execution of the said sentence on October 27, 2014.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Injury or injury caused by special obstruction of performance of official duties and damage to public objects;

On October 13, 2015, the Defendant, while driving a car with drinking alcohol at around 22:00, was trying to absconding to the same time as it was, by drinking driving, etc., after drinking alcohol and releasing the prison.

Although the Defendant received a signal to stop from a police officer belonging to the police station in charge of drinking control, the Defendant fleded to the funeral culture center room as it is, disregarding it. The Defendant continued to flee at a speed of 100 meters per hour, even though the victim patrols No. 12 and the victim patrols No. 13 of the said police station sent the Defendant a signal to stop using light lights and loudspeakers, etc. while harming the Defendant, the Defendant continued to abscond at a speed of 100km per hour.

Around 22:54 of the same day, the Defendant 1 was faced with a sudden central line on the side of an apartment apartment at Kimhae-si, and the Defendant 22:54 of the same day, and the victim was flicked with the front wheeler of the patrol car, which is a dangerous object to prevent the front (hereinafter referred to as the “first collision”). On the same day, the Defendant continued to escape continuously after the 12nd wheeler of the patrol car, which is a dangerous object to prevent the front her (hereinafter referred to as the “first collision”). At around 22:55 of the same day, the Defendant was faced with the patrol car No. 12, 13, 13, 643,058, 13, 283,809, 1926, 867, and 200,000 won, which was obstructed by the police officer’s legitimate traffic control and the treatment of danger and injury to the victim, and at the same time, caused damage to the victim’s duty.

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

The Defendant did not obtain a driver's license in the section of approximately 30 km of the place above the date stated in paragraph (1) and driven the said vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with 0.168% of alcohol concentration.

Summary of Evidence

(Omission)

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 144(2) first sentence and (1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 136(1)(a) of the Criminal Act, Article 141(1)(a) of the Criminal Act, Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 44(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 152 Subparag. 1 and 43(a) of the Road Traffic Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment between the crime of causing special obstruction of the performance of official duties and the crime of damaging public objects shall be imposed on the crime of causing serious injury to a special obstruction of the performance of official duties, and the punishment as provided for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act and the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, which are more severe punishment between the crime of causing serious obstruction of the performance of official duties

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of imprisonment for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act (limited to the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act concerning Injury resulting from Special Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Judgment on the assertion by the defendant or his/her defense counsel under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the aggravated punishment within the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act)

1. As to the assertion that there was no intention to obstruct special obstruction of performance of official duties or damage to public goods

A. Summary of the argument

The patrol vehicle driven by police officers is taking the Defendant’s vehicle in the course of towing the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant does not intentionally take the patrol vehicle.

B. Determination

According to the above evidence, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

1) The victim and the court stated in the police and the court that (1) while driving the patrol vehicle (12) net 12 and following the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant did not stop the Defendant’s vehicle in the course of avoiding the trend of the patrol vehicle No. 13 that the Defendant was running on the right side (2) while driving the patrol vehicle at the (12) net 12, and then driving the patrol vehicle, and prevented the Defendant from driving the Defendant’s vehicle. However, the Defendant did not stop the patrol vehicle at the (13) net 13, which the Defendant was driving on the right side, without any special circumstances to deny the credibility of the patrol vehicle. The witness’s statement is consistent, specific and clear. There are no special circumstances to deny the credibility of the patrol vehicle.

2) According to the Defendant’s vehicle and patrol box image recorded in the situation at the time of the instant case, at the time of the first collision, the Defendant, while making the patrol car No. 12 at the time of the first collision, is driving at a speed again, and at the time of the second collision, the Defendant continued to drive the patrol car No. 13 at the time of the second collision, while holding the patrol car at the time of the Defendant’s vehicle, without holding the patrol car at the time of the second collision. This conforms to the said statement.

3) The Defendant made a statement at the prosecution that he did not memory about the first collision, but according to the Defendant’s black stuff images and voice, the Defendant’s sound appears to be shot at the time of the first collision, and the Defendant was clearly aware of the said collision. In addition, the Defendant made a statement at the prosecution that the patrol car stopped the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the second collision, and the patrol car stopped and stopped the Defendant’s vehicle by shocking the Defendant’s vehicle, but this is contrary to the Defendant’s patrol car image.

5) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the patrol Nos. 12 and 13 was in operation near the Defendant’s vehicle in order to conceal the Defendant’s vehicle. In such a case, it was readily known that the Defendant’s vehicle could shock the patrol vehicle in the process of avoiding the Defendant’s attack.

In full view of these circumstances, it is sufficient to recognize that at least the Defendant had had dolusences in the performance of special official duties and damage to special public goods, and contrary to the second trial records, the statement made by the witness Kim Jong-tae is not believed.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and defense counsel.

2. As to the assertion that the crime of injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties does not constitute injury

A. Summary of the argument

Damage suffered by a victim is minor that does not interfere with daily life, and does not constitute injury to a special obstruction of performance of official duties.

B. Determination

According to the above evidence, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) The patrol car No. 12, when the victim was on board due to the first and second collisions, was destroyed to cover KRW 643,058 for repair costs, with the brush part of the front brus.

2) At the time of the first collision between the police and the court, the victim sleeped a large degree of shock to the extent that the vehicle might sleep at the time of the first collision, and immediately after the instant case, the victim stated that the timber and the slurb

3) The victim was diagnosed by the doctor on the following day of the instant case at around two weeks of medical treatment. In light of the above recognized facts, the circumstances at the time of the said crime, and the degree and contents of the wound, the damage suffered by the victim constitutes the injury resulting from a special obstruction of performance of official duties, inasmuch as the completeness of the body was damaged due to the said accident, and the state of health was changed to a bad condition.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

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

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crime: Crimes causing bodily injury resulting from special obstruction of performance;

[Determination of Punishment] Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Death or injury by Special Obstruction of Public Duty, Type 1 (Bodily Injury or Injury by Special Obstruction of Public Duty)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 2-4 years of imprisonment

(b) Scope of modified recommended sentences: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years (the minimum limit of the sentencing criteria shall be taken into account only the case of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act among the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and the crimes for which the sentencing guidelines are not set, and, therefore, the punishment cannot be imposed lower than the minimum limit of the applicable sentencing standards in

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years is deemed to have been sentenced to six months for criminal facts, such as "the defendant, who is likely to be exposed to drinking control, committed a crime of this case, committed a crime under the influence of police officers, and sustained bodily injury by a police officer during the course of escape, disregarding the police officer's legitimate demand for stopping, and at the same time destroyed the patrol vehicle in light of its circumstances, means, and results. Furthermore, in the case of a crime of causing bodily injury by special obstruction of performance of official duties, there is a high need to strictly cope with the crime. In particular, on April 29, 2014, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months for the crime of this case, such as "the defendant committed a crime under the influence of alcohol by a police officer and escaped without taking necessary measures," and that the defendant committed the crime of this case without being informed of the police officer during the period of repeated crime, and that there is a minor violation of the Road Traffic Act or a violation of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as a fine) and punishment by a police officer.

Constitutional Court of the presiding judge, judge and judge

Deferment of Justice

Judges Park Jong-soo