2015Gohap139 Injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties

A person shall be appointed.

Yellow-line (Public Prosecution), No. 200, 200, 300

Attorney Park Jong-soo (Korean National Assembly Line)

August 18, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

To order the accused to attend a community service for 80 hours and a compliance officer for 40 hours.

Criminal facts

On February 23, 2015, at around 50: 23:50, the Defendant stopped the said car at the front road *** in front of the World War, Daejeon Police Station security patrol unit * (20 years old) while driving the car while driving the car * in front of the street * * * Ma in front of the street string, who is the police officer of the Daejeon Western Police Station, under drinking control * (20 years old) * (20 years old), and sent the Defendant a signal that the Defendant was able to have the drinking of the respiratory defect by putting the car into the window of the open driver’s seat, which is a dangerous object. The Defendant started from the above vehicle, and led the victim’s arms in front of the driver’s seat in front of the vehicle, leading the victim as they were.

As a result, the defendant, with dangerous things, has prevented the legitimate execution of duties of public officials for drinking control, and has inflicted an injury on the victim, such as an excellent salt field in need of treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. Each legal statement of witness Kim*, (Omission)

1. A certificate of injury, a copy of a vehicle rental contract, and the ledger of driver's licenses;

1. Report on occurrence of special obstruction of performance of official duties and investigation report (specific suspect);

1. A photograph, a photo, and a photographic;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Articles 144(2) (main sentence) and (1), and 136(1) of the Criminal Act

2. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

3. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing have been repeatedly taken into consideration for favorable circumstances)

4. Orders to provide community service and attend lectures;

Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

At the time of the defendant's escape, the victim was expressed to the effect that the victim was drinking out of the car after deducting the car from the car, and thus, the victim's arms were not inside the car. Therefore, the car operated by the defendant was not shocked by the victim, and the victim was not injured.

2. Determination

In light of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant’s assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted, since the Defendant was in a passenger car at the time of running the car, and the Defendant’s arms were shocked with a passenger car and thereby, the Defendant’s and the defense counsel suffered an injury.

A. The victim, from the investigative agency to the court of this case, referring to the left hand at the time of the instant case to the light direction seal (the string: the string) and the hand (or the string) that caused the Defendant to drive on the front of the vehicle in which he was driving, put into the driver’s seat, but entered as soon as possible in the drinking-free season.

A sound has occurred. Before one’s own knee knee knee kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kn on the window, while one’s own kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kn on the left side, the one’s kne kne kne kne kne

B. The lecture* was under drinking control with the victim at the time ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever til ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever

다 . 이 사건 직후 작성된 특수공무집행방해사건 발생 보고에 의하면 피해자는 승 용차가 팔을 치고 가면서 무릎이 삐끗하며 꺾였다고 진술하였다 . 피해자는 그 후 병원 에 방문하여 진료를 받고 우수부 염좌 , 좌슬부 염좌 등의 상해를 입었다는 진단서를 발급받았다 .

D. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant appeared to have observed the fact that the victim’s grandchildren were not in a passenger car at the time when the Defendant escaped under this Act. However, at the time of the instant case, there was a police control at the time of the instant case’s “in the police on April 10, 2015,” the Defendant started a vehicle again and stopped the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant “at the time it was difficult for the Defendant to obtain and stop the vehicle.” At the time of the instant case, there was no memory as to how the Defendant was drinking by any means. According to the empirical rule, it is difficult to say that the Defendant was unable to keep the vehicle at the time of the instant request for appearance, and that the Defendant did not know at the time of this case’s oral statement to the effect that it was not consistent with the Defendant’s oral statement that he did not harm the right part of the window.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area of No. 1 (Bodily Injury resulting from Obstruction of Public Duty) (2 years or more)

4 years)

【No Special Convicted Person】

2. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant, while taking a drinking test by a police officer, escaped from the police officer, obstructed the performance of legitimate official duties concerning the possession of the police officer, and inflicted an injury on the police officer. The Defendant, due to the instant crime, was not only victimized but also may cause additional traffic accidents. Also, in light of the need to strictly cope with such crimes in order to maintain the judicial order and to maintain the public peace, the Defendant’s liability is not easy.

However, considering the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the injured party is relatively not much serious, the fact that the defendant must support the aged 4, 2, 10 months old, and 10 months old, the fact that the defendant has no criminal records exceeding the fine, and the fact that the defendant has no criminal records exceeding the fine, etc. In addition, considering the motive and background of the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances that were shown in the arguments of this case, and the jury's sentencing opinions after the crime, the scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines shall be set as the disposition by escaping from the scope of recommendations according to the sentencing guidelines.

Jurors verdict and Sentencing Opinion

1. Do verdict;

○ "guilty": Seven jurors (A jury only knife)

2. Sentencing Opinion

○ Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and June, three years of probation, 80 hours in community service, 40 hours in a compliance driving lecture: Five persons;

○ Imprisonment for a year and six months, suspension of execution for three years, community service hours for 80 hours: one person;

○ Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and June, two years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of community service: one person.

For this reason, the case is ordered through a participatory trial according to the defendant's wishes.

shall be ruled.

The presiding judge shall appoint judges;

Judges Lee Jae-soo

Judges Kim Jong-hwan