logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.01.06 2015노3240
특수공무집행방해치상등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (the injury caused by interference with the performance of special duties) of the Defendant, while assaulting a police officer, carrying with him a person who is a dangerous object, and taking the suspect, but the police officer did not completely control the police officer, thereby causing the injury by taking the face of the victim H with his head while the crime of interference with the performance of special duties has not yet been completed. Thus, the Defendant is fully convicted of the injury caused by interference with the performance of special duties.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the injury caused by interference with the performance of special duties.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unfasible.

2. Determination

A. On September 12, 2015, the Defendant, among the facts charged in the instant case, injured the victim’s face by assaulting the victim’s performance of official duties twice, thereby hindering legitimate performance of official duties, and thereby hindering the victim’s face by assaulting the victim’s face on two occasions, i.e., the Seoul Regional Railroad Police Department’s investigation by the Special Judicial Police Division on the ground that he did not promptly release the suspect after preparing a suspect interrogation protocol, and doing an act to restrain the victim’s Ha et al., a special judicial police officer, and five other dangerous articles, and causing damage to the victim’s character and strawing.

2) In light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning acknowledged in the record, the lower court determined that the Defendant sustained an injury to the victim during his/her resistance without completely suppressing it after the Defendant display his/her chair.

However, the defendant continued to lead to the risk of dangerous articles that existed when he had affixed the steel chair until the victim is injured.

arrow